Anecdotally I know several people who will be voting kipper, but who wouldn't say so to any but their closest friends because of the reaction it gets from the right-on segment of the public. There has been too many PC idiocies like the Rotherham foster parent nonsense, and the dismissed school governor, for people to feel safe about publicly associating themselves with UKIP, which in a democracy is a complete disgrace irrespective of what you think of the party and its policies.
I have a Liberal colleague who is convinced UKIP are all racists. Generally I am very careful about who I tell I am going to vote UKIP because a good chunk of the radical left consider them on a par with the BNP and being too open about supporting them if you are a professional can IMHO be quite career damaging. I've told several close colleagues at work but now regret it. Similarly I wouldn't tell neighbours/ other kids parents or people at Church because I don't want to be branded a racist.
I would like to join UKIP but consider it too dangerous professionally (not because there is anything wrong with them but because of the reaction from ingnoramuses if they found out) so won't until I pack up work in the thick end of a decades time.
Similarly I would like to put a UKIP sticker on my car or house window because I have kids and don't want a brick through the window or the kids getting abuse from other kids.
I certainly would'nt tell a stranger on the phone or knocking at the door that I'm voting UKIP. They might be a pollster but who is to say that the employee doing the poll isn't an SWP member or a member of some other nutty left wing group.
In such a climate it is fairly obvious that the opinion polls are going to underestimate UKIP support. One of the things that makes me cold bloodedly determined to vote for them, even if I had to be wheeled to the polling station in a stretcher, is the fact that I cannot openly say I'm supporting UKIP without fearing the consequences.
I think the reason that they are seen as predominately voted for by pensioners, is that pensioners have nothing to lose by being publically associated with them so can be open.
We have entered an era of Mugabe style democracy. Such a tragic shame of our country drop to such levels.
If Cameron has most seats then he stays PM and this will not be an issue, if he wins most votes then he could in theory talk to the LDs first on confidence and supply as Heath did, if that fails he could still lead until another election in the autumn as Heath also did, but the fixed parliament act poses questions there. If he loses that second election, or he comes behind Labour in both seats and votes, he is toast and Boris will take over
FWIW, Ben, the UK has been a member of the EU/EEC for all my life. And I've never had a say on that.
I want to have a vote: and I want it to be a clear vote. The renegotiation approach - even if it may not achieve anything - is needed. Otherwise the pro-EU side will behave like a whining boyfriend "Don't break up with me. I promise I can change".
We need to know what they are prepared to offer. And then the people can chose whether it is enough.
You do realise that in 2017 it will not be clear what, if anything, the other EU countries are prepared to offer? Even the EU's best friends don't think it works that quickly, with votes and referenda needed in 27 countries. What we would have is Cameron's negotiating package, plus some nudges and hints on what he might get - Spanish government will support this, Bulgarians say they might accept that, etc. Will that meet your requirement? Or in that situation will you want a delay until it's clear, or a second referendum?
It will be possible to have completed the renegotiation if not the ratification.
So in the enabling legislation you include a provision that if ratification does not happen within X years then it automatically devolves into an exit.
More difficult is the Irish second vote situation, but I suspect you would leave it to the government to determine whether any amendments are sufficiently material to invaldiate the original vote
To be clear, are you saying you think there will be a treaty, signed by all EU members, before this hypothetical referendum?
PS. It seems a bit eccentric to give all the veto players in the EU an option to force Britain to exit. Losing votes in the Council of Ministers because of Britain? No problem, Britain just gave you control of their ejector seat. And some of these will be second chambers held by the opposition, and they'll be trying to make things difficult for their own governments.
It is possible - this is going to be a limited renegotiation, so I would assume it is an amending Treaty rather than a full reworking.
I'm fine with a re-vote if it isn't ratified as well. The key point is that if we vote for something then we should get what we vote for.
JackW Regardless of whether the LDs give confidence or supply or a coalition if the Tories need them for a majority they will not be able to pass a budget without LD support and consultation
Anecdotally I know several people who will be voting kipper, but who wouldn't say so to any but their closest friends because of the reaction it gets from the right-on segment of the public. There has been too many PC idiocies like the Rotherham foster parent nonsense, and the dismissed school governor, for people to feel safe about publicly associating themselves with UKIP, which in a democracy is a complete disgrace irrespective of what you think of the party and its policies.
I have a Liberal colleague who is convinced UKIP are all racists. Generally I am very careful about who I tell I am going to vote UKIP because a good chunk of the radical left consider them on a par with the BNP and being too open about supporting them if you are a professional can IMHO be quite career damaging. I've told several close colleagues at work but now regret it. Similarly I wouldn't tell neighbours/ other kids parents or people at Church because I don't want to be branded a racist.
I would like to join UKIP but consider it too dangerous professionally (not because there is anything wrong with them but because of the reaction from ingnoramuses if they found out) so won't until I pack up work in the thick end of a decades time.
Similarly I would like to put a UKIP sticker on my car or house window because I have kids and don't want a brick through the window or the kids getting abuse from other kids.
I certainly would'nt tell a stranger on the phone or knocking at the door that I'm voting UKIP. They might be a pollster but who is to say that the employee doing the poll isn't an SWP member or a member of some other nutty left wing group.
In such a climate it is fairly obvious that the opinion polls are going to underestimate UKIP support. One of the things that makes me cold bloodedly determined to vote for them, even if I had to be wheeled to the polling station in a stretcher, is the fact that I cannot openly say I'm supporting UKIP without fearing the consequences.
I think the reason that they are seen as predominately voted for by pensioners, is that pensioners have nothing to lose by being publically associated with them so can be open.
We have entered an era of Mugabe style democracy. Such a tragic shame of our country drop to such levels.
How to thoroughly demean the genuine suffering of the people of Zimbabwe in two short sentences.
What it can't do is give decision making power to an external body, not elected by or answerable to the British electorate. (And no, UK MEPs aren't sufficient to make the EU parliament accountable because it has made decisions affecting the UK which virtually all the UK MEPs have voted against)
As I understand it even EU legislation is only applied in the UK by being passed as an Act or as a SI under the law-making provisions of an existing act. Since parliament could on simple majority vote repeal the European Communities Act, the Human Rights Act and anything else it felt like presumably the last word on the matter falls to any parliament that is prepared to accept the political and diplomatic fallout.
Doesn't alter the fact it is a bad policy that benefits rich kids.
The Tories don't have monopoly on bad policy shocker (Although they are market dominant).
Translation: "I don't agree with the Tories".
Whereas, I reckon that a policy which will (a) make universities more dependent on state funding, (b) undermine incentives to save, (c) introduce further uncertainty in the pension system and (d) benefit only those kids (aka "rich kids") who were expecting to pay back their loans in full is pretty objectively bad policy.
Cameron's position on the EU and the farce of renegotiation is as dishonest as he is. Still no answer on what he wants to renegotiate. Because this isn't about the UKs strategic position in the world, it is about the Tories' strategic position versus a largely reviled rightwing splinter group. Shameful. How dare Tories attempt to paint Miliband as opportunistic on anything when their own weak and embattled leader is the most shameless in selling out Britain's national in increasingly desperate attempts to shore up his crumbling position.
A torrid, pitiful PM.
FWIW, Ben, the UK has been a member of the EU/EEC for all my life. And I've never had a say on that.
I want to have a vote: and I want it to be a clear vote. The renegotiation approach - even if it may not achieve anything - is needed. Otherwise the pro-EU side will behave like a whining boyfriend "Don't break up with me. I promise I can change".
We need to know what they are prepared to offer. And then the people can chose whether it is enough.
Charles - the UK has been a lot of things for all your life. And you've never had a say on them. Driving on the left. Using decimal currency. Most people don't obsess about these things.
Sure, but none of fundamental constitutional importance.
This is my country, the government works for me. If they want to delegate power on a permanent basis, I have the right to approve or reject their proposal.
I don't see why - you've already delegated power to them, why do they have to ask you again before they delegate it on? And related to my previous point, that principle would mean you'd have to hold referendums on a lot of international treaties.
Where they should have to ask you is if they want to _appropriate_ power over you that they don't already have. Normally this is handled by having a written constitution stating what power the government has over you, and requiring a referendum if they want to change it.
Parliament is empowered to enter into treaties between sovereign powers. These are voluntary self-denying ordinances.
Parliament can also delegate decision making to local bodies within the UK.
What it can't do is give decision making power to an external body, not elected by or answerable to the British electorate. (And no, UK MEPs aren't sufficient to make the EU parliament accountable because it has made decisions affecting the UK which virtually all the UK MEPs have voted against)
NATO is an external body, not elected by or answerable to the British electorate.
Doesn't alter the fact it is a bad policy that benefits rich kids.
It benefits graduates easning over £21K pa. These are not rich kids. Those earning under £21K don't pay anything back under either scheme which is why they don't benefit.
Miliband also announced an increase of non-repayable maintenance grants by £400 per year to cover students' living costs but only available to families with a total income below about £42,000. So this helps poorer kids.
Parliament is empowered to enter into treaties between sovereign powers. These are voluntary self-denying ordinances.
Parliament can also delegate decision making to local bodies within the UK.
What it can't do is give decision making power to an external body, not elected by or answerable to the British electorate. (And no, UK MEPs aren't sufficient to make the EU parliament accountable because it has made decisions affecting the UK which virtually all the UK MEPs have voted against)
NATO is an external body, not elected by or answerable to the British electorate.
But NATO doesn't have decision making power.
If Article 5 was invoked and we decided not to respond, then we could do that
Doesn't alter the fact it is a bad policy that benefits rich kids.
Reminds me of the Left Wing government in Greece. Get elected on populist proposals which won't work but appeal to those who think money grows on trees.
FWIW, Ben, the UK has been a member of the EU/EEC for all my life. And I've never had a say on that.
I want to have a vote: and I want it to be a clear vote. The renegotiation approach - even if it may not achieve anything - is needed. Otherwise the pro-EU side will behave like a whining boyfriend "Don't break up with me. I promise I can change".
We need to know what they are prepared to offer. And then the people can chose whether it is enough.
Charles - the UK has been a lot of things for all your life. And you've never had a say on them. Driving on the left. Using decimal currency. Most people don't obsess about these things.
Sure, but none of fundamental constitutional importance.
This is my country, the government works for me. If they want to delegate power on a permanent basis, I have the right to approve or reject their proposal.
I don't see why - you've already delegated power to them, why do they have to ask you again before they delegate it on? And related to my previous point, that principle would mean you'd have to hold referendums on a lot of international treaties.
Where they should have to ask you is if they want to _appropriate_ power over you that they don't already have. Normally this is handled by having a written constitution stating what power the government has over you, and requiring a referendum if they want to change it.
Parliament is empowered to enter into treaties between sovereign powers. These are voluntary self-denying ordinances.
Parliament can also delegate decision making to local bodies within the UK.
What it can't do is give decision making power to an external body, not elected by or answerable to the British electorate. (And no, UK MEPs aren't sufficient to make the EU parliament accountable because it has made decisions affecting the UK which virtually all the UK MEPs have voted against)
NATO is an external body, not elected by or answerable to the British electorate.
The British electorate can elect a government that would pull out of NATO though, if the Spanish elect Podemos they intend to do exactly that.
@Foxinsox - Interesting how little furore there was this week over the new migration figures. Partly it was their predictibility, but a very big determinant must be the economy. When people are losing their jobs the issue of immigration becomes more intense, when the economy is growing they are more secure and much less bothered.
Alternatively, the day the immigration figures were revealed was the day that Jihadi John was unmasked. As I commented yesterday, Cameron is a very lucky PM. Tory moves to import voters were knocked off the front pages and out of the comment sections.
"Tory moves to import voters"? You must be as deluded as kippers. It was Labour's original policy to import voters when Asians mostly voted Labour. A few "wars against muslims" have knocked that a bit.
Ha, ha. If immigration went up under Labour because Labour wanted to import voters, then surely the same reasoning must apply when it goes up under the Tories.
Ironically, once they settled down, I thought the Poles would be natural Tories [ I know it is a broad brush ] because of those "family values" etc. etc.
But since their reception from Tories and right of centre people have been universally hostile, basically "why are you here ?" and "why don't you F****** go back ?" !!!
It will take sometime, even after they begin to naturalise, to vote Tory.
Tories don't have equal views to right of centre (i.e. UKIP, BNP) despite your very broad brush.
If Tesco's run a competition that is supposed to have 100 winners of a Mini, but they misjudge it and print a million winning competition tickets, do you a) blame the people running the competition or b) blame the people turning up to claim their Mini? The Poles (and others) haven't gamed the system, so fair play to them. Reserve your anger for those in Labour who got the estimates hopelessly wrong, failed to plan for increased housing, education and health needs when they did - and then keep them far, far from the levers of power again.
The Tories need to print some leaflets in Polish - and remind them that Labour were the Socialist Party apologists for the Berlin Wall and the failed Communist system - and the Tories were the party that fought to bring down that wall and end Communism across Europe.
There is not single grain of truth in your post. Why should I be angry with Labour ? I want more immigrants to come to the UK. It is immigration that has been the main fuel for good performance in the last decade and a half. The Tories also have finally cottoned on to that, thankfully. Immigration is good - just look at Japan , the only developed country which effectively does not allow immigration.
It suggests that the decline of the LibDems mean Con requires a much lower lead over Lab than 11.4% in England to win an overall majority.
Even if UKIP draws votes from Con (say 18% of 2010 Con voters) and Lab (say 6% of 2010 Lab voters) uniformly across Eng and Wales, then a Con lead of around 8% in England would give them 326 seats.
Should (as I expect) the switchers from both Con and Lab to UKIP be lower in Con/Lab marginals, then even an England lead of 7% would be enough for an overall majority; while assuming Lab lose 20 seats to SNP. then a bare 2.5% leave in England (0.1% over all of the UK) would leave Con with most seats.
As I said on my previous post, I may have got something horribly wrong, but I would appreciate it if someone could have a play with my model and let me know.
I shall be away now for a couple of days so won't be able to see any replies until then. But it would be great if someone could."
Broadly I think his analysis is correct, and it is a lovely spreadsheet to play about with, though the critical figures are in table PQRS.
Being able to tinker with the swings between so many parties and also to see the workings does make it more interesting than the ElectoralCalculus version (though that is more user friendly).
I still have some concerns about its utility. Like all models it does depend on swings being fairly uniform between seats and regions, but there is likely to be some lumpiness.
An Excel-ent link for spreadsheet junkies. Thanks!
Apparently 84% (89% of Labour) have NEVER done anything that they regard as tax avoidance (ISAs?). Good job they did not ask about tax evasion which includes cash-in-hand!
So do polls have any credibility?
Again ISA comes up ! ISA is NOT tax avoidance.ISA was CREATED by Parliament precisely for what it does. Just like Tax Allowances, putting money up to your limits in pension pots etc. etc. Parliament created those instruments.
Tax Avoidance is doing those acts [ constructions ? ] which Parliament DID NOT intend to do. They are legal simply because they are not illegal. Parliament can make them illegal as Parliament does in almost every budget by closing some loopholes until another one is invented.
'intend'? Every single tax avoider is following the law 100% as it was written. The point they are not following the law it becomes evasion.
Your distinction between something being legal because it is not illegal, is a bit obvious. Everything is legal until parliament makes a law saying otherwise (or judicial precedent through common law), ISAs and pensions put forward by Governments are not 'permissions' for us to save our money how they want us to, they are removal of restrictions in certain areas.
I invest in my ISA, you get higher rate pension tax relief, and he has a swiss bank account.
Doesn't alter the fact it is a bad policy that benefits rich kids.
It benefits graduates easning over £21K pa. These are not rich kids. Those earning under £21K don't pay anything back under either scheme which is why they don't benefit.
Miliband also announced an increase of non-repayable maintenance grants by £400 per year to cover students' living costs but only available to families with a total income below about £42,000. So this helps poorer kids.
It only helps graduates 20 years after they graduate, if the threshold and repayments are unchanged. So they pay off their loan aged 40 rather than 45!
It is not jam today, or even jam tommorow. It is jam in the 2030's!
Doesn't alter the fact it is a bad policy that benefits rich kids.
It benefits graduates easning over £21K pa. These are not rich kids. Those earning under £21K don't pay anything back under either scheme which is why they don't benefit.
Miliband also announced an increase of non-repayable maintenance grants by £400 per year to cover students' living costs but only available to families with a total income below about £42,000. So this helps poorer kids.
I think Charles is referring to the irrecoverable loans, many from lower income earning graduates. Therefore, by implication, only those who do pay benefit.
Rather odd for Charles to push a system where non-paying is almost considered a virtue. This is another point to consider: a lot of this £3000 reduction would have been written off anyway. So the "cost" is actually less than it appears.
The point which the Tories and Liberal Democrats [ ? what was their position in 2010,again ? ] are making is that £9000 is better than £6000. What is so magical about £9000 ? Why not £12000 ? After all, the £9000 decision was taken 5 years ago.
FWIW, Ben, the UK has been a member of the EU/EEC for all my life. And I've never had a say on that.
I want to have a vote: and I want it to be a clear vote. The renegotiation approach - even if it may not achieve anything - is needed. Otherwise the pro-EU side will behave like a whining boyfriend "Don't break up with me. I promise I can change".
We need to know what they are prepared to offer. And then the people can chose whether it is enough.
Charles - the UK has been a lot of things for all your life. And you've never had a say on them. Driving on the left. Using decimal currency. Most people don't obsess about these things.
Sure, but none of fundamental constitutional importance.
This is my country, the government works for me. If they want to delegate power on a permanent basis, I have the right to approve or reject their proposal.
I don't see why - you've already delegated power to them, why do they have to ask you again before they delegate it on? And related to my previous point, that principle would mean you'd have to hold referendums on a lot of international treaties.
Where they should have to ask you is if they want to _appropriate_ power over you that they don't already have. Normally this is handled by having a written constitution stating what power the government has over you, and requiring a referendum if they want to change it.
Parliament is empowered to enter into treaties between sovereign powers. These are voluntary self-denying ordinances.
Parliament can also delegate decision making to local bodies within the UK.
What it can't do is give decision making power to an external body, not elected by or answerable to the British electorate. (And no, UK MEPs aren't sufficient to make the EU parliament accountable because it has made decisions affecting the UK which virtually all the UK MEPs have voted against)
NATO is an external body, not elected by or answerable to the British electorate.
The British electorate can elect a government that would pull out of NATO though, if the Spanish elect Podemos they intend to do exactly that.
The British electorate can elect a government that would pull out of the EU.
Parliament is empowered to enter into treaties between sovereign powers. These are voluntary self-denying ordinances.
Parliament can also delegate decision making to local bodies within the UK.
What it can't do is give decision making power to an external body, not elected by or answerable to the British electorate. (And no, UK MEPs aren't sufficient to make the EU parliament accountable because it has made decisions affecting the UK which virtually all the UK MEPs have voted against)
NATO is an external body, not elected by or answerable to the British electorate.
But NATO doesn't have decision making power.
If Article 5 was invoked and we decided not to respond, then we could do that
In breach of its treaty obligations, sure. But the same is true of the EU.
The practical upshot in either case would be that other members would stop fulfilling their treaty obligations towards you.
I am quite sure Dave would want another 3 or 4 years as PM before handing on to a successor but he will not remain leader of the Tories in opposition. He had the best part of 5 years of that already.
He has had a long and successful career at the top of UK politics. He has held a fractious party together better than almost anyone else could. The fact the Tories could not win a majority with him as leader simply demonstrates how weak they had become. I very much doubt they will do better under anyone else in the near future.
Apparently 84% (89% of Labour) have NEVER done anything that they regard as tax avoidance (ISAs?). Good job they did not ask about tax evasion which includes cash-in-hand!
So do polls have any credibility?
Again ISA comes up ! ISA is NOT tax avoidance.ISA was CREATED by Parliament precisely for what it does. Just like Tax Allowances, putting money up to your limits in pension pots etc. etc. Parliament created those instruments.
Tax Avoidance is doing those acts [ constructions ? ] which Parliament DID NOT intend to do. They are legal simply because they are not illegal. Parliament can make them illegal as Parliament does in almost every budget by closing some loopholes until another one is invented.
'intend'? Every single tax avoider is following the law 100% as it was written. The point they are not following the law it becomes evasion.
Your distinction between something being legal because it is not illegal, is a bit obvious. Everything is legal until parliament makes a law saying otherwise (or judicial precedent through common law), ISAs and pensions put forward by Governments are not 'permissions' for us to save our money how they want us to, they are removal of restrictions in certain areas.
I invest in my ISA, you get higher rate pension tax relief, and he has a swiss bank account.
Garbage !!! Nowhere was it written in any statute that you open up a swiss bank account or any other construction invented afterwards. They are legal only because they have not been made illegal - yet !
ISA, Pension tax relief have been specifically passed by Parliament in statute. So they cannot be tax avoidance.
Just seen this weeks Sunday Times list of the Best Places to Live in Britain - and my village is in the list (Blackawton, number 8, for anyone curious...).
Which was nice....
Apparently Blackawton was in line for the top spot until it was noticed it had the odd political obsessive living locally ....
No - Jonathon DImbleby lives in the next village over, Jack....
@Foxinsox - Interesting how little furore there was this week over the new migration figures.
Ha, ha. If immigration went up under Labour because Labour wanted to import voters, then surely the same reasoning must apply when it goes up under the Tories.
Ironically, once they settled down, I thought the Poles would be natural Tories [ I know it is a broad brush ] because of those "family values" etc. etc.
But since their reception from Tories and right of centre people have been universally hostile, basically "why are you here ?" and "why don't you F****** go back ?" !!!
It will take sometime, even after they begin to naturalise, to vote Tory.
The Tories need to print some leaflets in Polish - and remind them that Labour were the Socialist Party apologists for the Berlin Wall and the failed Communist system - and the Tories were the party that fought to bring down that wall and end Communism across Europe.
There is not single grain of truth in your post. Why should I be angry with Labour ? I want more immigrants to come to the UK. It is immigration that has been the main fuel for good performance in the last decade and a half. The Tories also have finally cottoned on to that, thankfully. Immigration is good - just look at Japan , the only developed country which effectively does not allow immigration.
You might be happy. Labour might be happy. It's just Labour took the view it would have been political suicide if they had done it openly. So they ran away from an pen discussion. And in doing so, had to pretend there would be no massive increase in needs for healthcare, education, housing. Needs which this Government has been left to struggle with.
Let's have a debate by all means on how many people we want in this country, and what happens if we close the borders. In the open. Informed. Not how Labour did it - spending 13 years having this fundamentally important issue implemented by stealth and subterfuge.
Apparently 84% (89% of Labour) have NEVER done anything that they regard as tax avoidance (ISAs?). Good job they did not ask about tax evasion which includes cash-in-hand!
So do polls have any credibility?
Again ISA comes up ! ISA is NOT tax avoidance.ISA was CREATED by Parliament precisely for what it does. Just like Tax Allowances, putting money up to your limits in pension pots etc. etc. Parliament created those instruments.
Tax Avoidance is doing those acts [ constructions ? ] which Parliament DID NOT intend to do. They are legal simply because they are not illegal. Parliament can make them illegal as Parliament does in almost every budget by closing some loopholes until another one is invented.
'intend'? Every single tax avoider is following the law 100% as it was written. The point they are not following the law it becomes evasion.
Your distinction between something being legal because it is not illegal, is a bit obvious. Everything is legal until parliament makes a law saying otherwise (or judicial precedent through common law), ISAs and pensions put forward by Governments are not 'permissions' for us to save our money how they want us to, they are removal of restrictions in certain areas.
I invest in my ISA, you get higher rate pension tax relief, and he has a swiss bank account.
Garbage !!! Nowhere was it written in any statute that you open up a swiss bank account or any other construction invented afterwards. They are legal only because they have not been made illegal - yet !
ISA, Pension tax relief have been specifically passed by Parliament in statute. So they cannot be tax avoidance.
"They are legal only because they have not been made illegal"
Apparently 84% (89% of Labour) have NEVER done anything that they regard as tax avoidance (ISAs?). Good job they did not ask about tax evasion which includes cash-in-hand!
So do polls have any credibility?
Again ISA comes up ! ISA is NOT tax avoidance.ISA was CREATED by Parliament precisely for what it does. Just like Tax Allowances, putting money up to your limits in pension pots etc. etc. Parliament created those instruments.
Tax Avoidance is doing those acts [ constructions ? ] which Parliament DID NOT intend to do. They are legal simply because they are not illegal. Parliament can make them illegal as Parliament does in almost every budget by closing some loopholes until another one is invented.
'intend'? Every single tax avoider is following the law 100% as it was written. The point they are not following the law it becomes evasion.
Your distinction between something being legal because it is not illegal, is a bit obvious. Everything is legal until parliament makes a law saying otherwise (or judicial precedent through common law), ISAs and pensions put forward by Governments are not 'permissions' for us to save our money how they want us to, they are removal of restrictions in certain areas.
I invest in my ISA, you get higher rate pension tax relief, and he has a swiss bank account.
Garbage !!! Nowhere was it written in any statute that you open up a swiss bank account or any other construction invented afterwards. They are legal only because they have not been made illegal - yet !
ISA, Pension tax relief have been specifically passed by Parliament in statute. So they cannot be tax avoidance.
What weird world we live in. You think we need a law to tell us what we can do?
Q: I wish to open up a swiss bank account, is there a law to allow me to do so? A: We dont have laws that allow you to do things, just laws that stop you doing things. There is no law that prevents you from opening a swiss bank account.
Anecdotally I know several people who will be voting kipper, but who wouldn't say so to any but their closest friends because of the reaction it gets from the right-on segment of the public. There has been too many PC idiocies like the Rotherham foster parent nonsense, and the dismissed school governor, for people to feel safe about publicly associating themselves with UKIP, which in a democracy is a complete disgrace irrespective of what you think of the party and its policies.
I have a Liberal colleague who is convinced UKIP are all racists. Generally I am very careful about who I tell I am going to vote UKIP because a good chunk of the radical left consider them on a par with the BNP and being too open about supporting them if you are a professional can IMHO be quite career damaging. I've told several close colleagues at work but now regret it. Similarly I wouldn't tell neighbours/ other kids parents or people at Church because I don't want to be branded a racist.
I would like to join UKIP but consider it too dangerous professionally (not because there is anything wrong with them but because of the reaction from ingnoramuses if they found out) so won't until I pack up work in the thick end of a decades time.
Similarly I would like to put a UKIP sticker on my car or house window because I have kids and don't want a brick through the window or the kids getting abuse from other kids.
I certainly would'nt tell a stranger on the phone or knocking at the door that I'm voting UKIP. They might be a pollster but who is to say that the employee doing the poll isn't an SWP member or a member of some other nutty left wing group.
In such a climate it is fairly obvious that the opinion polls are going to underestimate UKIP support. One of the things that makes me cold bloodedly determined to vote for them, even if I had to be wheeled to the polling station in a stretcher, is the fact that I cannot openly say I'm supporting UKIP without fearing the consequences.
I think the reason that they are seen as predominately voted for by pensioners, is that pensioners have nothing to lose by being publically associated with them so can be open.
We have entered an era of Mugabe style democracy. Such a tragic shame of our country drop to such levels.
Garbage !!! Nowhere was it written in any statute that you open up a swiss bank account or any other construction invented afterwards. They are legal only because they have not been made illegal - yet !
ISA, Pension tax relief have been specifically passed by Parliament in statute. So they cannot be tax avoidance.
All me to quote the legal opinion a week of so ago of our own LinMT
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?
I am quite sure Dave would want another 3 or 4 years as PM before handing on to a successor but he will not remain leader of the Tories in opposition. He had the best part of 5 years of that already.
He has had a long and successful career at the top of UK politics. He has held a fractious party together better than almost anyone else could. The fact the Tories could not win a majority with him as leader simply demonstrates how weak they had become. I very much doubt they will do better under anyone else in the near future.
Cameron's legacy will be UKIP, Libya and the Islamic State.
Apparently 84% (89% of Labour) have NEVER done anything that they regard as tax avoidance (ISAs?). Good job they did not ask about tax evasion which includes cash-in-hand!
So do polls have any credibility?
Again ISA comes up ! ISA is NOT tax avoidance.ISA was CREATED by Parliament precisely for what it does. Just like Tax Allowances, putting money up to your limits in pension pots etc. etc. Parliament created those instruments.
Tax Avoidance is doing those acts [ constructions ? ] which Parliament DID NOT intend to do. They are legal simply because they are not illegal. Parliament can make them illegal as Parliament does in almost every budget by closing some loopholes until another one is invented.
'intend'? Every single tax avoider is following the law 100% as it was written. The point they are not following the law it becomes evasion.
Your distinction between something being legal because it is not illegal, is a bit obvious. Everything is legal until parliament makes a law saying otherwise (or judicial precedent through common law), ISAs and pensions put forward by Governments are not 'permissions' for us to save our money how they want us to, they are removal of restrictions in certain areas.
I invest in my ISA, you get higher rate pension tax relief, and he has a swiss bank account.
Garbage !!! Nowhere was it written in any statute that you open up a swiss bank account or any other construction invented afterwards. They are legal only because they have not been made illegal - yet !
ISA, Pension tax relief have been specifically passed by Parliament in statute. So they cannot be tax avoidance.
"They are legal only because they have not been made illegal"
That's how the law works in this country.
Except when you start comparing it with ISA and Pension pots etc which were specifically enacted upon by Parliament. Putting money in a Swiss Bank is not illegal , Where did I say that ?
Steve Bee@PensionsGuru·2 hrs2 hours ago If only our MPs could build a pension scheme for the rest of us that's as good as the one they've built for themselves...#ifonly
Garbage !!! Nowhere was it written in any statute that you open up a swiss bank account or any other construction invented afterwards. They are legal only because they have not been made illegal - yet !
ISA, Pension tax relief have been specifically passed by Parliament in statute. So they cannot be tax avoidance.
All me to quote the legal opinion a week of so ago of our own LinMT
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?
Precisely. Everything that is not forbidden is allowed.
I am quite sure Dave would want another 3 or 4 years as PM before handing on to a successor but he will not remain leader of the Tories in opposition. He had the best part of 5 years of that already.
He has had a long and successful career at the top of UK politics. He has held a fractious party together better than almost anyone else could. The fact the Tories could not win a majority with him as leader simply demonstrates how weak they had become. I very much doubt they will do better under anyone else in the near future.
Cameron's legacy will be UKIP, Libya and the Islamic State.
Shame, two very winnable elections, two fails.
UKIP existed before Cameron and will exist afterwards. Neither is he responsible for the barbarism of bearded fanatics in the flyblown hell holes of the Middle East.
I am quite sure Dave would want another 3 or 4 years as PM before handing on to a successor but he will not remain leader of the Tories in opposition. He had the best part of 5 years of that already.
He has had a long and successful career at the top of UK politics. He has held a fractious party together better than almost anyone else could. The fact the Tories could not win a majority with him as leader simply demonstrates how weak they had become. I very much doubt they will do better under anyone else in the near future.
Cameron's legacy will be UKIP, Libya and the Islamic State.
Shame, two very winnable elections, two fails.
They were not winnable by the Conservative party which appeals to too small a share of the electorate. And that share is riven by the self indulgence and delusions of Kippers.
Even a Labour Party led by madmen and incompetents appeals to a broader share of the electorate. They seem to care more and have more interest in the average Joe. The internecine hatreds and obsessions of the right bore the majority stupid and are very unattractive. Cameron did incredibly well to win 100 seats against such a background and will prevent the Tories getting thrashed this time. It is better than most of them deserve.
Garbage !!! Nowhere was it written in any statute that you open up a swiss bank account or any other construction invented afterwards. They are legal only because they have not been made illegal - yet !
ISA, Pension tax relief have been specifically passed by Parliament in statute. So they cannot be tax avoidance.
All me to quote the legal opinion a week of so ago of our own LinMT
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?
This is out of date. The regulations and guidance for GAAR came into force at the end of January.
Very interesting piece on clan based block vote politics in Bradford on Sunday Politics (Yorks and Lincs). Coming to the Bradford West candidate shortly.
Anecdotally I know several people who will be voting kipper, but who wouldn't say so to any but their closest friends because of the reaction it gets from the right-on segment of the public. There has been too many PC idiocies like the Rotherham foster parent nonsense, and the dismissed school governor, for people to feel safe about publicly associating themselves with UKIP, which in a democracy is a complete disgrace irrespective of what you think of the party and its policies.
I have a Liberal colleague who is convinced UKIP are all racists. Generally I am very careful about who I tell I am going to vote UKIP because a good chunk of the radical left consider them on a par with the BNP and being too open about supporting them if you are a professional can IMHO be quite career damaging. I've told several close colleagues at work but now regret it. Similarly I wouldn't tell neighbours/ other kids parents or people at Church because I don't want to be branded a racist.
I would like to join UKIP but consider it too dangerous professionally (not because there is anything wrong with them but because of the reaction from ingnoramuses if they found out) so won't until I pack up work in the thick end of a decades time.
Similarly I would like to put a UKIP sticker on my car or house window because I have kids and don't want a brick through the window or the kids getting abuse from other kids.
I certainly would'nt tell a stranger on the phone or knocking at the door that I'm voting UKIP. They might be a pollster but who is to say that the employee doing the poll isn't an SWP member or a member of some other nutty left wing group.
In such a climate it is fairly obvious that the opinion polls are going to underestimate UKIP support. One of the things that makes me cold bloodedly determined to vote for them, even if I had to be wheeled to the polling station in a stretcher, is the fact that I cannot openly say I'm supporting UKIP without fearing the consequences.
I think the reason that they are seen as predominately voted for by pensioners, is that pensioners have nothing to lose by being publically associated with them so can be open.
We have entered an era of Mugabe style democracy. Such a tragic shame of our country drop to such levels.
How to thoroughly demean the genuine suffering of the people of Zimbabwe in two short sentences.
Surbiton .. The Labour Party have never sacked any of their many incompetent leaders because they never had the courage.They couldn't even pick the current dolt..the Unite Union had to do it for them.
Apparently 84% (89% of Labour) have NEVER done anything that they regard as tax avoidance (ISAs?). Good job they did not ask about tax evasion which includes cash-in-hand!
So do polls have any credibility?
invented.
'intend'? Every single tax avoider is following the law 100% as it was written. The point they are not following the law it becomes evasion.
I invest in my ISA, you get higher rate pension tax relief, and he has a swiss bank account.
be tax avoidance.
Nowhere is it written that you should vote Labour and spend your life talking garbage either.....
On topic, given the polls it seems reasonable enough to be considering possible outcomes. No Cameron fan myself but he is still ..
Kippers really don't get it.
There are only two ways to enjoy a high level of trade. Either you enforce your terms at gunpoint, which worked very well for the UK for 200 years until all those subjugated people rebelled.
Or you agree to give up the ability to make certain changes to your national laws in order to participate in open trade. One of those requirements, if you wish to trade with the EU, is to allow a single labour market, EFTA countries are required to agree to this. If the UK wants to close its borders then it needs to be very clearly understood that this means it will be poorer due to lack of trade, everything will be more expensive and often shoddier and the economy will fall off a cliff.
If you want that because you don't like Poles, fine. The problem is that Kippers seem to have no understanding of this and wilfully ignore such obvious truths.
IIRC there are something like 190 countries who use the model UKIP wish to return to and 30-35 at most who currently adopt the model endorsed above in any form at all. Most of those 30-35 are in economic decline and the region as a whole is too. That is not the case for many of the 190 countries who adopt the former model. Of course if you think your economy is a no hope basket case then I can see the logic in off-setting your problems by snuggling up to an economic union which might lessen the impact of economic failure but if you believe your economy can thrive its basically just burying yourself in concrete up to your waste.
Its obvious which outlook is being taken above........
All tax law is enacted by parliament. At what point do you think avoiding tax is wrong?
Lets try a sliding scale. You obviously think it is fine to avoid paying tax by investing in vehicles that specify tax relief, such as ISAs and pensions.
What about a touch more complicated. A sole trader plumber, grossed £78,000 in 2014-15, on that he made £50,000 profit.
He goes to visit an accountant. He discusses with his accountant. He tells him he is faily busy, doesnt fancy taking on any staff. But he could see himself creeping over the VAT threshold. His accountant tells him, unless he intends to significantly go over it, its probably best to stay below the threshold, even if that means turning down a small bit of work.
Is that tax avoidance?
His accountant then talks about income tax. As the profit on his sole trader account is over £41k he is paying 40% tax on £9k. His accountant tells him that he could put that £9k into a pension fund and save £3,600, with higher rate tax relief on pension funds.
Is that tax avoidance?
His accountant than talks about how you should maybe become a limited company instead of a sole trader. This is great for any kind of liabilities that you might have. But it also means that you can draw yourself a salary as an employee. The accountant asks about the plumbers wife, is she working? No, she stays at home and looks after the kids, we have two under fives.
Well, the accountant asks if she does any work, like book keeping etc. The plumber answers not really. She helps me all put it in the spreadsheet at the end of the year. The accountant suggests that she takes a basic book keeping course and that he forms a limited company, that the company pays her £20k, of which she will make a £10k pension contribution, and the remaining income will be just over the tax free allowance meaning she will get national insurance credits.
Is this tax avoidance?
He then tells the plumber, that with paying her a salary we reduce your salary down but still make big pension contributions, this will make you entitled to working tax credit, if we balance out the salarys right, and keep money in the business by minimising your income, we could end up with almost £20,000 of tax credits per year.
Doesn't alter the fact it is a bad policy that benefits rich kids.
It benefits graduates easning over £21K pa. These are not rich kids. Those earning under £21K don't pay anything back under either scheme which is why they don't benefit.
Miliband also announced an increase of non-repayable maintenance grants by £400 per year to cover students' living costs but only available to families with a total income below about £42,000. So this helps poorer kids.
I think Charles is referring to the irrecoverable loans, many from lower income earning graduates. Therefore, by implication, only those who do pay benefit.
Rather odd for Charles to push a system where non-paying is almost considered a virtue. This is another point to consider: a lot of this £3000 reduction would have been written off anyway. So the "cost" is actually less than it appears.
The point which the Tories and Liberal Democrats [ ? what was their position in 2010,again ? ] are making is that £9000 is better than £6000. What is so magical about £9000 ? Why not £12000 ? After all, the £9000 decision was taken 5 years ago.
The cash flow cost in both schemes is £9000 per student a year paid to universities by government.
Under the current scheme, the government "balances the books" by offsetting the cost against a loan to students. So the deficit is unchanged even though the government has to borrow to finance the payment to universities. But when the loan is written off many years in the future it is a bad debt that is someone else's problem.
Yet Vince Cable has the brass-necked cheek to describe Miliband's scheme as completely financially illiterate!
I am quite sure Dave would want another 3 or 4 years as PM before handing on to a successor but he will not remain leader of the Tories in opposition. He had the best part of 5 years of that already.
He has had a long and successful career at the top of UK politics. He has held a fractious party together better than almost anyone else could. The fact the Tories could not win a majority with him as leader simply demonstrates how weak they had become. I very much doubt they will do better under anyone else in the near future.
Cameron's legacy will be UKIP, Libya and the Islamic State.
Shame, two very winnable elections, two fails.
They were not winnable by the Conservative party which appeals to too small a share of the electorate. And that share is riven by the self indulgence and delusions of Kippers.
Far too black and white. There are loads of kippers that are natural Tories, that don't particularly have a beef about immigration, or about the EU, or at least no more so than a typical Tory. But they are social conservatives and were thrown under a bus in Dave's frantic rush to the centre.
The Conservative Party used to be a broad church, even under Thatcher there was the socially conservative white van men, the retired colonels and blue rinsed ladies, the millions of grey boring but loyal suburban traditional Tories and the patriotic vote, and these shared the same party as the wets, with Ken Clarke and Heseltine.
The Tory party can't win elections because of it's narrow appeal, its a very narrow and self-righteous church these days full of smug metropolitan liberals, that was totally a decision of the leadership, a self-inflicted wound from which they will be lucky to ever recover fully.
The Tory Party has no right to voters votes, they have to win them, if they are too narrow, those voters will go elsewhere with their vote, you might think they are wrong, or even deluded, but that wont make them vote for us, and when you are sitting on the opposition benches that feeling of "detoxification" and intellectual and moral purity is cold comfort indeed.
Doesn't alter the fact it is a bad policy that benefits rich kids.
It benefits graduates easning over £21K pa. These are not rich kids. Those earning under £21K don't pay anything back under either scheme which is why they don't benefit.
Miliband also announced an increase of non-repayable maintenance grants by £400 per year to cover students' living costs but only available to families with a total income below about £42,000. So this helps poorer kids.
It benefits those graduates earning over 21K p.a. who will pay back the entire loan + interest by the time they are 50(?). I doubt that people earning barely over the threshold will benefit much, if at all. I hadn't seen the grant increase, which is clearly more effectively targeted.
Given the good old soft soap treatment....only a brief mention of a being a guerrilla fighter and all that went along with that and also no look at actually what he has done in power other than legalize marijuana.
Garbage !!! Nowhere was it written in any statute that you open up a swiss bank account or any other construction invented afterwards. They are legal only because they have not been made illegal - yet !
ISA, Pension tax relief have been specifically passed by Parliament in statute. So they cannot be tax avoidance.
All me to quote the legal opinion a week of so ago of our own LinMT
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?
This is out of date. The regulations and guidance for GAAR came into force at the end of January.
Indeed. In in those regulations parliament means what the regulations say, and not what people want them to say as well, if someone finds a "loophole" in the wording or implementation of GAAR that will be legal as well. GAAR isn't the cure all that people think it is, although it is going to help, to be found an aggressive avoidance it still needs to satisfy the test that the majority of reasonable people would find that measures taken an unreasonable approach. As usually it will hit the medium sized fish, the big fish will swim free because their lawyers and accountants will be good enough, or if it becomes too onerous, because they will live somewhere else.
Doesn't alter the fact it is a bad policy that benefits rich kids.
It benefits graduates easning over £21K pa. These are not rich kids. Those earning under £21K don't pay anything back under either scheme which is why they don't benefit.
Miliband also announced an increase of non-repayable maintenance grants by £400 per year to cover students' living costs but only available to families with a total income below about £42,000. So this helps poorer kids.
It benefits those graduates earning over 21K p.a. who will pay back the entire loan + interest by the time they are 50(?). I doubt that people earning barely over the threshold will benefit much, if at all. I hadn't seen the grant increase, which is clearly more effectively targeted.
Fortunately most of my children are daughters, so if they marry someone wealthy and stay at home to bring up their children, as their mother, has, doing only part time work (rather than dumping the kids in a day orphanage) they will probably never repay a penny of the fees.
All tax law is enacted by parliament. At what point do you think avoiding tax is wrong?
Lets try a sliding scale. You obviously think it is fine to avoid paying tax by investing in vehicles that specify tax relief, such as ISAs and pensions.
What about a touch more complicated. A sole trader plumber, grossed £78,000 in 2014-15, on that he made £50,000 profit.
He goes to visit an accountant. He discusses with his accountant. He tells him he is faily busy, doesnt fancy taking on any staff. But he could see himself creeping over the VAT threshold. His accountant tells him, unless he intends to significantly go over it, its probably best to stay below the threshold, even if that means turning down a small bit of work.
Is that tax avoidance?
His accountant then talks about income tax. As the profit on his sole trader account is over £41k he is paying 40% tax on £9k. His accountant tells him that he could put that £9k into a pension fund and save £3,600, with higher rate tax relief on pension funds.
Is that tax avoidance?
His accountant than talks about how you should maybe become a limited company instead of a sole trader. This is great for any kind of liabilities that you might have. But it also means that you can draw yourself a salary as an employee. The accountant asks about the plumbers wife, is she working? No, she stays at home and looks after the kids, we have two under fives.
Well, the accountant asks if she does any work, like book keeping etc. The plumber answers not really. She helps me all put it in the spreadsheet at the end of the year. The accountant suggests that she takes a basic book keeping course and that he forms a limited company, that the company pays her £20k, of which she will make a £10k pension contribution, and the remaining income will be just over the tax free allowance meaning she will get national insurance credits.
Is this tax avoidance?
He then tells the plumber, that with paying her a salary we reduce your salary down but still make big pension contributions, this will make you entitled to working tax credit, if we balance out the salarys right, and keep money in the business by minimising your income, we could end up with almost £20,000 of tax credits per year.
Is this tax avoidance?
I am on a phone so I cannot do the link but to repeat the answer to all your questions and many more are now found in the official GAAR Guidance published on 22nd January and which came into force on 30th January of this year.
Just seen this weeks Sunday Times list of the Best Places to Live in Britain - and my village is in the list (Blackawton, number 8, for anyone curious...).
Which was nice....
Apparently Blackawton was in line for the top spot until it was noticed it had the odd political obsessive living locally ....
No - Jonathon DImbleby lives in the next village over, Jack....
Wow, next you will be telling us bears s*** in the woods
Surbiton .. The Labour Party have never sacked any of their many incompetent leaders because they never had the courage.They couldn't even pick the current dolt..the Unite Union had to do it for them.
The security of tenure of Ed Miliband is down to the whim of UNITE. If Labour lose in May, there is going to be an epic blood-letting on the left about how the MPs and party members were stuck with a dud, just because the unions er, fund the Labour Party.... Hang on - we're never going to stop this happening time and again, are we? Bugger....
Doesn't alter the fact it is a bad policy that benefits rich kids.
It benefits graduates easning over £21K pa. These are not rich kids. Those earning under £21K don't pay anything back under either scheme which is why they don't benefit.
Miliband also announced an increase of non-repayable maintenance grants by £400 per year to cover students' living costs but only available to families with a total income below about £42,000. So this helps poorer kids.
It benefits those graduates earning over 21K p.a. who will pay back the entire loan + interest by the time they are 50(?). I doubt that people earning barely over the threshold will benefit much, if at all. I hadn't seen the grant increase, which is clearly more effectively targeted.
A far more effective use of any tax increase (and a pensions grab is not a very good target for this) would be to leave fees unchanged but greatly increase non repayable maintenence grants.
2) However, there are precedents for the following situations: ... (b) A governing party finishes second to the governing party in terms of both votes and seats, but without conceding an outright majority. The convention is that under such circumstances, the government immediately resigns. This most recently happened in 1929. Note that this was not followed in 2010 because O'Donnell was ignorant of the several precedents in question (which makes @coolargana 's comments all the more ironic) and wrongly advised Brown that in practice despite his heavy defeat he was entitled to try and stay on.
(c) A governing party finishes first in terms of votes, but second in terms of seats. The convention here is that the governing party is permitted to try and form a government. This most recently happened in 1974. HOWEVER - crucial caveat - in almost all previous elections where this has happened, the result was very close in terms of seats. That may not happen this time - even if the Tories are five points ahead, they may still be well behind on seats. (continued)
In 1929, the Conservatives won most votes. So they should be under c, not b. Which makes this Sunday's lesson more ambiguous.
Who would call for EdM to resign The entire Labour Party
The Labour Party has never sacked a leader - never mind a sitting Prime Minister. We leave it to the Tories to do the dirty.
Snort!
Have you ever heard of (Lord) Andrew McIntosh. The Labour party were responsible for the most infamous, undemocratic and iniquitous sacking of a leader in UK democratic history.
At least the tories don't sack their leaders the day after winning an election and replace them with a tinpot trot the voters would have chosen the other lot over.
All tax law is enacted by parliament. At what point do you think avoiding tax is wrong?
Lets try a sliding scale. You obviously think it is fine to avoid paying tax by investing in vehicles that specify tax relief, such as ISAs and pensions.
What about a touch more complicated. A sole trader plumber, grossed £78,000 in 2014-15, on that he made £50,000 profit.
He goes to visit an accountant. He discusses with his accountant. He tells him he is faily busy, doesnt fancy taking on any staff. But he could see himself creeping over the VAT threshold. His accountant tells him, unless he intends to significantly go over it, its probably best to stay below the threshold, even if that means turning down a small bit of work.
Is that tax avoidance?
His accountant then talks about income tax. As the profit on his sole trader account is over £41k he is paying 40% tax on £9k. His accountant tells him that he could put that £9k into a pension fund and save £3,600, with higher rate tax relief on pension funds.
Is that tax avoidance?
His accountant than talks about how you should maybe become a limited company instead of a sole trader. This is great for any kind of liabilities that you might have. But it also means that you can draw yourself a salary as an employee. The accountant asks about the plumbers wife, is she working? No, she stays at home and looks after the kids, we have two under fives.
Well, the accountant asks if she does any work, like book keeping etc. The plumber answers not really. She helps me all put it in the spreadsheet at the end of the year. The accountant suggests that she takes a basic book keeping course and that he forms a limited company, that the company pays her £20k, of which she will make a £10k pension contribution, and the remaining income will be just over the tax free allowance meaning she will get national insurance credits.
Is this tax avoidance?
He then tells the plumber, that with paying her a salary we reduce your salary down but still make big pension contributions, this will make you entitled to working tax credit, if we balance out the salarys right, and keep money in the business by minimising your income, we could end up with almost £20,000 of tax credits per year.
Is this tax avoidance?
NO, that is tax planning using government legislated options. No comparison with hiding your cash in Swiss bank accounts or any other dodgy scheme involving dubious schemes that are obviously scams.
@Paul_Mid_Beds It's the benefit of an unwritten constitution, they can make it up as they go along. (and deny it's very existence if they feel so inclined)
Doesn't alter the fact it is a bad policy that benefits rich kids.
It benefits graduates easning over £21K pa. These are not rich kids. Those earning under £21K don't pay anything back under either scheme which is why they don't benefit.
Miliband also announced an increase of non-repayable maintenance grants by £400 per year to cover students' living costs but only available to families with a total income below about £42,000. So this helps poorer kids.
It benefits those graduates earning over 21K p.a. who will pay back the entire loan + interest by the time they are 50(?). I doubt that people earning barely over the threshold will benefit much, if at all. I hadn't seen the grant increase, which is clearly more effectively targeted.
A far more effective use of any tax increase (and a pensions grab is not a very good target for this) would be to leave fees unchanged but greatly increase non repayable maintenence grants.
Didn't we conclude yesterday that the pension grab would probably make the square root of nothing since people were in voluntary contributions at that high level and would basically put their money somewhere else.
Apparently 84% (89% of Labour) have NEVER done anything that they regard as tax avoidance (ISAs?). Good job they did not ask about tax evasion which includes cash-in-hand!
So do polls have any credibility?
Again ISA comes up ! ISA is NOT tax avoidance.ISA was CREATED by Parliament precisely for what it does. Just like Tax Allowances, putting money up to your limits in pension pots etc. etc. Parliament created those instruments.
Tax Avoidance is doing those acts [ constructions ? ] which Parliament DID NOT intend to do. They are legal simply because they are not illegal. Parliament can make them illegal as Parliament does in almost every budget by closing some loopholes until another one is invented.
'intend'? Every single tax avoider is following the law 100% as it was written. The point they are not following the law it becomes evasion.
Your distinction between something being legal because it is not illegal, is a bit obvious. Everything is legal until parliament makes a law saying otherwise (or judicial precedent through common law), ISAs and pensions put forward by Governments are not 'permissions' for us to save our money how they want us to, they are removal of restrictions in certain areas.
I invest in my ISA, you get higher rate pension tax relief, and he has a swiss bank account.
Garbage !!! Nowhere was it written in any statute that you open up a swiss bank account or any other construction invented afterwards. They are legal only because they have not been made illegal - yet !
ISA, Pension tax relief have been specifically passed by Parliament in statute. So they cannot be tax avoidance.
What weird world we live in. You think we need a law to tell us what we can do?
Q: I wish to open up a swiss bank account, is there a law to allow me to do so? A: We dont have laws that allow you to do things, just laws that stop you doing things. There is no law that prevents you from opening a swiss bank account.
You can whinge all you want but any fool knows that there are many things that are not legislated on that should be , lots of self interest prevents it.
I am quite sure Dave He has had a long and successful career at the top of UK politics. He has held a fractious party together better than almost anyone else could. The fact the Tories could not win a majority with him as leader simply demonstrates how weak they had become. I very much doubt they will do better under anyone else in the near future.
Cameron's legacy will be UKIP, Libya and the Islamic State.
Shame, two very winnable elections, two fails.
They were not winnable by the Conservative party which appeals to too small a share of the electorate. And that share is riven by the self indulgence and delusions of Kippers.
Far too black and white. There are loads of kippers that are natural Tories, that don't particularly have a beef about immigration, or about the EU, or at least no more so than a typical Tory. But they are social conservatives and were thrown under a bus in Dave's frantic rush to the centre.
The Conservative Party used to be a broad church, even under Thatcher there was the socially conservative white van men, the retired colonels and blue rinsed ladies, the millions of grey boring but loyal suburban traditional Tories and the patriotic vote, and these shared the same party as the wets, with Ken Clarke and Heseltine.
The Tory party can't win elections because of it's narrow appeal, its a very narrow and self-righteous church these days full of smug metropolitan liberals, that was totally a decision of the leadership, a self-inflicted wound from which they will be lucky to ever recover fully.
The Tory Party has no right to voters votes, they have to win them, if they are too narrow, those voters will go elsewhere with their vote, you might think they are wrong, or even deluded, but that wont make them vote for us, and when you are sitting on the opposition benches that feeling of "detoxification" and intellectual and moral purity is cold comfort indeed.
With respect that is completely back to front. It was Cameron and Osborne who saw the need to return the party to the Thatcherite broad church and who sought the support of those who had turned their back on the Tories in their years of intellectual purity and irrelevant opposition. They partially succeeded but only at the risk of offending those same purists and obsessives that made the party irrelevant for so long and whilst Labour did so much terrible damage to the fabric of our country. Are we really going to have to suffer another 13 years of Labour misrule until those sad individuals finally get the message? Will there still be a country left to save? It certainly won't look like this one.
I actually think the whole argument about the EU referendum is completely moot anyway, before the end of 2017 we have a Act 2 of the GrExit drama in four months, the Spanish election with Podemos leading by some margin in the polls at the end of the year. We have an Italian election with Bepe Grillo's fruitcakes in the lead, and we have a French election with a good chance of FN getting into power, and a very good chance of them getting a load of seats in the national assembly. There are also several German state elections and the federal election in 2018 with a better than average chance of AfD making strong gains. The Dutch election is 2017 will be interesting as well with Geert Wilders leading in the polls at the moment. The chances the EU being in much of a state to leave are not good.
People might respect Europhobes if they had a better grasp of the Europe they purport to be disgusted by. Podemos leads by a tiny margin in a subset of polls, there is zero evidence that Grillo leads in Italy, and in most polls Le Pen loses even to the hated Hollande, in fact almost every poll says any other candidate would beat her to be President.
Doesn't alter the fact it is a bad policy that benefits rich kids.
It benefits graduates easning over £21K pa. These are not rich kids. Those earning under £21K don't pay anything back under either scheme which is why they don't benefit.
Miliband also announced an increase of non-repayable maintenance grants by £400 per year to cover students' living costs but only available to families with a total income below about £42,000. So this helps poorer kids.
It benefits those graduates earning over 21K p.a. who will pay back the entire loan + interest by the time they are 50(?). I doubt that people earning barely over the threshold will benefit much, if at all. I hadn't seen the grant increase, which is clearly more effectively targeted.
A far more effective use of any tax increase (and a pensions grab is not a very good target for this) would be to leave fees unchanged but greatly increase non repayable maintenence grants.
Didn't we conclude yesterday that the pension grab would probably make the square root of nothing since people were in voluntary contributions at that high level and would basically put their money somewhere else.
I agree. But if they simply do not make the contribution then there may be a boost in income tax revenues, unless they shield the money in other ways. These are high earners so they have good accountants.
How to thoroughly demean the genuine suffering of the people of Zimbabwe in two short sentences.
I will reserve judgment on that until I see what happens when a non establishment party looks like taking power.
Certainly the last time this happened, in the early days of the trade union movement and its party, Labour, this country rather specialised in Mugabe style tactics (such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Llanelli_Riots_of_1911) and things were little better during the 1980s miners strike and the "battle of Wapping" if I recall.
Mugabe is not the only one who reacts to any serious threat to establishment hegemony with violence.
I have heard it alleged on more than one occasion that in the '70s and '80s, the spooks faithfully recorded the serial numbers of ballot papers that had votes for communist or National Front and cross checked them against the register to ascertain the voter and note their name and address for future use.
@DavidL We need another Thatcher, "Where there is division.... we will use the police , security forces, spy agencies, and our friendly tame press to crush the bastards" I might be paraphrasing slightly.
There are only two ways to enjoy a high level of trade. Either you enforce your terms at gunpoint, which worked very well for the UK for 200 years until all those subjugated people rebelled.
Or you agree to give up the ability to make certain changes to your national laws in order to participate in open trade. One of those requirements, if you wish to trade with the EU, is to allow a single labour market, EFTA countries are required to agree to this. If the UK wants to close its borders then it needs to be very clearly understood that this means it will be poorer due to lack of trade, everything will be more expensive and often shoddier and the economy will fall off a cliff.
If you want that because you don't like Poles, fine. The problem is that Kippers seem to have no understanding of this and wilfully ignore such obvious truths.
You keep singing this hymn, and it doesn't make it any less bullshit for hearing it multiple times. The EU has free trade agreements with Korea, Iceland, Mexico and shortly with North America, none of those grant residency rights in either country. The conflation of immigration and trade is a complete red herring.
I was going to respond to the post which seemed completely ignorant of free trade agreements which the EU has entered into but can see that you have done so already. I was going to say both Mexico and South Korea have entered into agreements without needing to hand over billions every year and give up their national sovereignty.
They were not winnable by the Conservative party which appeals to too small a share of the electorate. And that share is riven by the self indulgence and delusions of Kippers.
Far too black and white. There are loads of kippers that are natural Tories, that don't particularly have a beef about immigration, or about the EU, or at least no more so than a typical Tory. But they are social conservatives and were thrown under a bus in Dave's frantic rush to the centre.
The Conservative Party used to be a broad church, even under Thatcher there was the socially conservative white van men, the retired colonels and blue rinsed ladies, the millions of grey boring but loyal suburban traditional Tories and the patriotic vote, and these shared the same party as the wets, with Ken Clarke and Heseltine.
The Tory party can't win elections because of it's narrow appeal, its a very narrow and self-righteous church these days full of smug metropolitan liberals, that was totally a decision of the leadership, a self-inflicted wound from which they will be lucky to ever recover fully.
The Tory Party has no right to voters votes, they have to win them, if they are too narrow, those voters will go elsewhere with their vote, you might think they are wrong, or even deluded, but that wont make them vote for us, and when you are sitting on the opposition benches that feeling of "detoxification" and intellectual and moral purity is cold comfort indeed.
With respect that is completely back to front. It was Cameron and Osborne who saw the need to return the party to the Thatcherite broad church and who sought the support of those who had turned their back on the Tories in their years of intellectual purity and irrelevant opposition. They partially succeeded but only at the risk of offending those same purists and obsessives that made the party irrelevant for so long and whilst Labour did so much terrible damage to the fabric of our country. Are we really going to have to suffer another 13 years of Labour misrule until those sad individuals finally get the message? Will there still be a country left to save? It certainly won't look like this one.
Possibly. But they are not going to change, so if we want power, we have to. And calling the current Conservative party a broad church is a joke, there is no place in Dave's Party for social conservatives, and no chance of any policy they value being taken forward, because Dave and his mates are metropolitan liberals and don't understand that part of the party at all.
@DavidL We need another Thatcher, "Where there is division.... we will use the police , security forces, spy agencies, and our friendly tame press to crush the bastards" I might be paraphrasing slightly.
very accurate, probably missed out quite a few though
@DavidL We need another Thatcher, "Where there is division.... we will use the police , security forces, spy agencies, and our friendly tame press to crush the bastards" I might be paraphrasing slightly.
They were not winnable by the Conservative party which appeals to too small a share of the electorate. And that share is riven by the self indulgence and delusions of Kippers.
Far too black and white. There are loads of kippers that are natural Tories, that don't particularly have a beef about immigration, or about the EU, or at least no more so than a typical Tory. But they are social conservatives and were thrown under a bus in Dave's frantic rush to the centre.
The Conservative Party used to be a broad church, even under Thatcher there was the socially conservative white van men, the retired colonels and blue rinsed ladies, the millions of grey boring but loyal suburban traditional Tories and the patriotic vote, and these shared the same party as the wets, with Ken Clarke and Heseltine.
The Tory party can't win elections because of it's narrow appeal, its a very narrow and self-righteous church these days full of smug metropolitan liberals, that was totally a decision of the leadership, a self-inflicted wound from which they will be lucky to ever recover fully.
The Tory Party has no right to voters votes, they have to win them, if they are too narrow, those voters will go elsewhere with their vote, you might think they are wrong, or even deluded, but that wont make them vote for us, and when you are sitting on the opposition benches that feeling of "detoxification" and intellectual and moral purity is cold comfort indeed.
With respect that is completely back to front. It was Cameron and Osborne who saw the need to return the party to the Thatcherite broad church and who sought the support of those who had turned their back on the Tories in their years of intellectual purity and irrelevant opposition. They partially succeeded but only at the risk of offending those same purists and obsessives that made the party irrelevant for so long and whilst Labour did so much terrible damage to the fabric of our country. Are we really going to have to suffer another 13 years of Labour misrule until those sad individuals finally get the message? Will there still be a country left to save? It certainly won't look like this one.
Possibly. But they are not going to change, so if we want power, we have to. And calling the current Conservative party a broad church is a joke, there is no place in Dave's Party for social conservatives, and no chance of any policy they value being taken forward, because Dave and his mates are metropolitan liberals and don't understand that part of the party at all.
Back to Hague, IDS or Michael Howard so the Tories can emulate their electoral prowress?
I actually think the whole argument about the EU referendum is completely moot anyway, before the end of 2017 we have a Act 2 of the GrExit drama in four months, the Spanish election with Podemos leading by some margin in the polls at the end of the year. We have an Italian election with Bepe Grillo's fruitcakes in the lead, and we have a French election with a good chance of FN getting into power, and a very good chance of them getting a load of seats in the national assembly. There are also several German state elections and the federal election in 2018 with a better than average chance of AfD making strong gains. The Dutch election is 2017 will be interesting as well with Geert Wilders leading in the polls at the moment. The chances the EU being in much of a state to leave are not good.
People might respect Europhobes if they had a better grasp of the Europe they purport to be disgusted by. Podemos leads by a tiny margin in a subset of polls, there is zero evidence that Grillo leads in Italy, and in most polls Le Pen loses even to the hated Hollande, in fact almost every poll says any other candidate would beat her to be President.
Far better be a Europhile putting their fingers in their ears and chanting "la-la-la nothing to see here" as the EU burns to the ground around them, and while our international competition accelerate off into the distance as the EU stagnates.
They were not winnable by the Conservative party which appeals to too small a share of the electorate. And that share is riven by the self indulgence and delusions of Kippers.
Far too black and white. There are loads of kippers that are natural Tories, that don't particularly have a beef about immigration, or about the EU, or at least no more so than a typical Tory. But they are social conservatives and were thrown under a bus in Dave's frantic rush to the centre.
The Conservative Party used to be a broad church, even under Thatcher there was the socially conservative white van men, the retired colonels and blue rinsed ladies, the millions of grey boring but loyal suburban traditional Tories and the patriotic vote, and these shared the same party as the wets, with Ken Clarke and Heseltine.
The Tory party can't win elections because of it's narrow appeal, its a very narrow and self-righteous church these days full of smug metropolitan liberals, that was totally a decision of the leadership, a self-inflicted wound from which they will be lucky to ever recover fully.
The Tory Party has no right to voters votes, they have to win them, if they are too narrow, those voters will go elsewhere with their vote, you might think they are wrong, or even deluded, but that wont make them vote for us, and when you are sitting on the opposition benches that feeling of "detoxification" and intellectual and moral purity is cold comfort indeed.
With respect that is completely back to front. It was Cameron and Osborne who saw the need to return the party to the Thatcherite broad church and who sought the support of those who had turned their back on the Tories in their years of intellectual purity and irrelevant opposition. They partially succeeded but only at the risk of offending those same purists and obsessives that made the party irrelevant for so long and whilst Labour did so much terrible damage to the fabric of our country. Are we really going to have to suffer another 13 years of Labour misrule until those sad individuals finally get the message? Will there still be a country left to save? It certainly won't look like this one.
Possibly. But they are not going to change, so if we want power, we have to. And calling the current Conservative party a broad church is a joke, there is no place in Dave's Party for social conservatives, and no chance of any policy they value being taken forward, because Dave and his mates are metropolitan liberals and don't understand that part of the party at all.
Back to Hague, IDS or Michael Howard so the Tories can emulate their electoral prowress?
Or Dave who's record on winning elections is broadly similar...
Kippers are left scrambling for a precedent for their "have-cake-eat-cake" populist promise, and end up saying that the EU would treat the UK the same way as it treats Mexico.
I have heard it alleged on more than one occasion that in the '70s and '80s, the spooks faithfully recorded the serial numbers of ballot papers that had votes for communist or National Front and cross checked them against the register to ascertain the voter and note their name and address for future use.
The paranoid persecution complex has been an important part of fringe nationalist movements since the 1930s.
@DavidL We need another Thatcher, "Where there is division.... we will use the police , security forces, spy agencies, and our friendly tame press to crush the bastards" I might be paraphrasing slightly.
LOL. Not quite the way I remember it.
An Alastair Campbell rewrite perhaps?
Would that be the Alastair Campbell of Dodgy Dossier and David Kelly fame?
Frankly I would prefer Thatcher. At least she was honest in what she was doing!
@DavidL Try reading a bit of history, and not just what was written by vested interests on both sides. At Orgrieve for example, the camera men had special "protection" and "liaison" officers to show them what they were to film. Very democratic....in a North Korean way.
They were not winnable by the Conservative party which appeals to too small a share of the electorate. And that share is riven by the self indulgence and delusions of Kippers.
Far too black and white. There are loads of kippers that are natural Tories, that don't particularly have a beef about immigration, or about the EU, or at least no more so than a typical Tory. But they are social conservatives and were thrown under a bus in Dave's frantic rush to the centre.
The Conservative Party used to be a broad church, even
The Tory party can't win elections because of it's narrow appeal, its a very narrow and self-righteous church these days full of smug metropolitan liberals, that was totally a decision of the leadership, a self-inflicted wound from which they will be lucky to ever recover fully.
The Tory Party has no right to voters votes, they have to win them, if they are too narrow, those voters will go elsewhere with their vote, you might think they are wrong, or even deluded, but that wont make them vote for us, and when you are sitting on the opposition benches that feeling of "detoxification" and intellectual and moral purity is cold comfort indeed.
With respect that is completely back to front. It was Cameron and Osborne who saw the need to return the party to the Thatcherite broad church and who sought the support of those who had turned their back on the Tories in their years of intellectual purity and irrelevant opposition. They partially succeeded but only at the risk of offending those same purists and obsessives that made the party irrelevant for so long and whilst Labour did so much terrible damage to the fabric of our country. Are we really going to have to suffer another 13 years of Labour misrule until those sad individuals finally get the message? Will there still be a country left to save? It certainly won't look like this one.
Possibly. But they are not going to change, so if we want power, we have to. And calling the current Conservative party a broad church is a joke, there is no place in Dave's Party for social conservatives, and no chance of any policy they value being taken forward, because Dave and his mates are metropolitan liberals and don't understand that part of the party at all.
Back to Hague, IDS or Michael Howard so the Tories can emulate their electoral prowress?
Or Dave who's record on winning elections is broadly similar...
Which of those three gained a hundred seats and the keys to number 10?
Far better be a Europhile putting their fingers in their ears and chanting "la-la-la nothing to see here" as the EU burns to the ground around them, and while our international competition accelerate off into the distance as the EU stagnates.
The problem is when Kippers simultaneously argue that the EU is becoming an evil colonial master of peripheral troika protectorates, while also saying that it is falling apart. It is difficult to be both an evil genius and a blundering idiot.
They were not winnable by the Conservative party which appeals to too small a share of the electorate. And that share is riven by the self indulgence and delusions of Kippers.
Far too black and white. There are loads of kippers that are natural Tories, that don't particularly have a beef about immigration, or about the EU, or at least no more so than a typical Tory. But they are social conservatives and were thrown under a bus in Dave's frantic rush to the centre.
The Conservative Party used to be a broad church, even under Thatcher there was the socially conservative white van men, the retired colonels and blue rinsed ladies, the millions of grey boring but loyal suburban traditional Tories and the patriotic vote, and these shared the same party as the wets, with Ken Clarke and Heseltine.
The Tory party can't win elections because of it's narrow appeal, its a very narrow and self-righteous church these days full of smug metropolitan liberals, that was totally a decision of the leadership, a self-inflicted wound from which they will be lucky to ever recover fully.
mfort indeed.
With respect that is completely back to front. It was Cameron and Osborne who saw the need to return the party to the Thatcherite broad church and who sought the support of those who had turned their back on the Tories in their years of intellectual purity and irrelevant opposition. They partially succeeded but only at the risk of offending those same purists and obsessives that made the party irrelevant for so long and whilst Labour did so much terrible damage to the fabric of our country. Are we really going to have to suffer another 13 years of Labour misrule until those sad individuals finally get the message? Will there still be a country left to save? It certainly won't look like this one.
Possibly. But they are not going to change, so if we want power, we have to. And calling the current Conservative party a broad church is a joke, there is no place in Dave's Party for social conservatives, and no chance of any policy they value being taken forward, because Dave and his mates are metropolitan liberals and don't understand that part of the party at all.
How does a party earn the right to be heard in the modern world if they oppose gay marriage?
The Tories carried some heavy and unpleasant baggage there and it had to go.
There have been largely token gestures towards the married family in the tax system. It would be a good area for George to focus on in his budget.
The wheel is turning on multiculturalism and the government is playing a role in that.
What else do you think they should be doing for social Conservatives?
Far better be a Europhile putting their fingers in their ears and chanting "la-la-la nothing to see here" as the EU burns to the ground around them, and while our international competition accelerate off into the distance as the EU stagnates.
It is difficult to be both an evil genius and a blundering idiot.
Comments
I'm fine with a re-vote if it isn't ratified as well. The key point is that if we vote for something then we should get what we vote for.
Whereas, I reckon that a policy which will (a) make universities more dependent on state funding, (b) undermine incentives to save, (c) introduce further uncertainty in the pension system and (d) benefit only those kids (aka "rich kids") who were expecting to pay back their loans in full is pretty objectively bad policy.
Miliband also announced an increase of non-repayable maintenance grants by £400 per year to cover students' living costs but only available to families with a total income below about £42,000. So this helps poorer kids.
If Article 5 was invoked and we decided not to respond, then we could do that
My twin brother is an Ipswich fan (we picked on colours) and we're still hoping for an Ipswich v Norwich playoff final.
"I was rather hoping somebody might have had time to look at the model I posted a couple of days ago which I have put together.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/83sxf8225s7h3mm/2015 General Election Possibilities Latest.xlsx?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/4djbtovu64zto8g/Gen Election Calculator Notes.docx?dl=0
It suggests that the decline of the LibDems mean Con requires a much lower lead over Lab than 11.4% in England to win an overall majority.
Even if UKIP draws votes from Con (say 18% of 2010 Con voters) and Lab (say 6% of 2010 Lab voters) uniformly across Eng and Wales, then a Con lead of around 8% in England would give them 326 seats.
Should (as I expect) the switchers from both Con and Lab to UKIP be lower in Con/Lab marginals, then even an England lead of 7% would be enough for an overall majority; while assuming Lab lose 20 seats to SNP. then a bare 2.5% leave in England (0.1% over all of the UK) would leave Con with most seats.
As I said on my previous post, I may have got something horribly wrong, but I would appreciate it if someone could have a play with my model and let me know.
I shall be away now for a couple of days so won't be able to see any replies until then. But it would be great if someone could."
Broadly I think his analysis is correct, and it is a lovely spreadsheet to play about with, though the critical figures are in table PQRS.
Being able to tinker with the swings between so many parties and also to see the workings does make it more interesting than the ElectoralCalculus version (though that is more user friendly).
I still have some concerns about its utility. Like all models it does depend on swings being fairly uniform between seats and regions, but there is likely to be some lumpiness.
An Excel-ent link for spreadsheet junkies. Thanks!
Your distinction between something being legal because it is not illegal, is a bit obvious. Everything is legal until parliament makes a law saying otherwise (or judicial precedent through common law), ISAs and pensions put forward by Governments are not 'permissions' for us to save our money how they want us to, they are removal of restrictions in certain areas.
I invest in my ISA, you get higher rate pension tax relief, and he has a swiss bank account.
It is not jam today, or even jam tommorow. It is jam in the 2030's!
Rather odd for Charles to push a system where non-paying is almost considered a virtue.
This is another point to consider: a lot of this £3000 reduction would have been written off anyway. So the "cost" is actually less than it appears.
The point which the Tories and Liberal Democrats [ ? what was their position in 2010,again ? ] are making is that £9000 is better than £6000. What is so magical about £9000 ? Why not £12000 ? After all, the £9000 decision was taken 5 years ago.
The Tories were forecast to take 31.8 per cent, with Labour on 31.4 per cent, while the Liberal Democrats and Ukip were both on 13.3 per cent.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11442559/General-Election-2015-Tories-plan-housing-revolution-as-they-gain-poll-lead.html
The practical upshot in either case would be that other members would stop fulfilling their treaty obligations towards you.
He has had a long and successful career at the top of UK politics. He has held a fractious party together better than almost anyone else could. The fact the Tories could not win a majority with him as leader simply demonstrates how weak they had become. I very much doubt they will do better under anyone else in the near future.
ISA, Pension tax relief have been specifically passed by Parliament in statute. So they cannot be tax avoidance.
Playing Six Degrees of Separation can be amusing. I lived two miles from Edward Fox - that actor.
"They are legal only because they have not been made illegal"
That's how the law works in this country.
Q: I wish to open up a swiss bank account, is there a law to allow me to do so?
A: We dont have laws that allow you to do things, just laws that stop you doing things. There is no law that prevents you from opening a swiss bank account.
"Conservative chairman Grant Shapps promises new "right to build" will see 100,000 new homes go up by 2010...."
Shame, two very winnable elections, two fails.
In the meantime one of my hobby horses:
Steve Bee@PensionsGuru·2 hrs2 hours ago
If only our MPs could build a pension scheme for the rest of us that's as good as the one they've built for themselves...#ifonly
SUNIL????
Even a Labour Party led by madmen and incompetents appeals to a broader share of the electorate. They seem to care more and have more interest in the average Joe. The internecine hatreds and obsessions of the right bore the majority stupid and are very unattractive. Cameron did incredibly well to win 100 seats against such a background and will prevent the Tories getting thrashed this time. It is better than most of them deserve.
It may not happen, of course; circumstances change. But if it does happen, that spy gets a bonus.
Its obvious which outlook is being taken above........
All tax law is enacted by parliament. At what point do you think avoiding tax is wrong?
Lets try a sliding scale. You obviously think it is fine to avoid paying tax by investing in vehicles that specify tax relief, such as ISAs and pensions.
What about a touch more complicated. A sole trader plumber, grossed £78,000 in 2014-15, on that he made £50,000 profit.
He goes to visit an accountant. He discusses with his accountant. He tells him he is faily busy, doesnt fancy taking on any staff. But he could see himself creeping over the VAT threshold. His accountant tells him, unless he intends to significantly go over it, its probably best to stay below the threshold, even if that means turning down a small bit of work.
Is that tax avoidance?
His accountant then talks about income tax. As the profit on his sole trader account is over £41k he is paying 40% tax on £9k. His accountant tells him that he could put that £9k into a pension fund and save £3,600, with higher rate tax relief on pension funds.
Is that tax avoidance?
His accountant than talks about how you should maybe become a limited company instead of a sole trader. This is great for any kind of liabilities that you might have. But it also means that you can draw yourself a salary as an employee. The accountant asks about the plumbers wife, is she working? No, she stays at home and looks after the kids, we have two under fives.
Well, the accountant asks if she does any work, like book keeping etc. The plumber answers not really. She helps me all put it in the spreadsheet at the end of the year. The accountant suggests that she takes a basic book keeping course and that he forms a limited company, that the company pays her £20k, of which she will make a £10k pension contribution, and the remaining income will be just over the tax free allowance meaning she will get national insurance credits.
Is this tax avoidance?
He then tells the plumber, that with paying her a salary we reduce your salary down but still make big pension contributions, this will make you entitled to working tax credit, if we balance out the salarys right, and keep money in the business by minimising your income, we could end up with almost £20,000 of tax credits per year.
Is this tax avoidance?
Under the current scheme, the government "balances the books" by offsetting the cost against a loan to students. So the deficit is unchanged even though the government has to borrow to finance the payment to universities. But when the loan is written off many years in the future it is a bad debt that is someone else's problem.
Yet Vince Cable has the brass-necked cheek to describe Miliband's scheme as completely financially illiterate!
The Conservative Party used to be a broad church, even under Thatcher there was the socially conservative white van men, the retired colonels and blue rinsed ladies, the millions of grey boring but loyal suburban traditional Tories and the patriotic vote, and these shared the same party as the wets, with Ken Clarke and Heseltine.
The Tory party can't win elections because of it's narrow appeal, its a very narrow and self-righteous church these days full of smug metropolitan liberals, that was totally a decision of the leadership, a self-inflicted wound from which they will be lucky to ever recover fully.
The Tory Party has no right to voters votes, they have to win them, if they are too narrow, those voters will go elsewhere with their vote, you might think they are wrong, or even deluded, but that wont make them vote for us, and when you are sitting on the opposition benches that feeling of "detoxification" and intellectual and moral purity is cold comfort indeed.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-31679475
Given the good old soft soap treatment....only a brief mention of a being a guerrilla fighter and all that went along with that and also no look at actually what he has done in power other than legalize marijuana.
http://panampost.com/hana-fischer/2014/09/03/pepe-mujica-a-libertarian-if-only/
Have you ever heard of (Lord) Andrew McIntosh. The Labour party were responsible for the most infamous, undemocratic and iniquitous sacking of a leader in UK democratic history.
At least the tories don't sack their leaders the day after winning an election and replace them with a tinpot trot the voters would have chosen the other lot over.
It's the benefit of an unwritten constitution, they can make it up as they go along.
(and deny it's very existence if they feel so inclined)
Certainly the last time this happened, in the early days of the trade union movement and its party, Labour, this country rather specialised in Mugabe style tactics (such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Llanelli_Riots_of_1911) and things were little better during the 1980s miners strike and the "battle of Wapping" if I recall.
Mugabe is not the only one who reacts to any serious threat to establishment hegemony with violence.
I have heard it alleged on more than one occasion that in the '70s and '80s, the spooks faithfully recorded the serial numbers of ballot papers that had votes for communist or National Front and cross checked them against the register to ascertain the voter and note their name and address for future use.
We need another Thatcher, "Where there is division.... we will use the police , security forces, spy agencies, and our friendly tame press to crush the bastards"
I might be paraphrasing slightly.
You would need a bog roll to do the full list.
An Alastair Campbell rewrite perhaps?
Liverpool win -
Arsenal win -
England rugby -
Spurs lose -
The most hope is the egg-ball ...
Frankly I would prefer Thatcher. At least she was honest in what she was doing!
Try reading a bit of history, and not just what was written by vested interests on both sides.
At Orgrieve for example, the camera men had special "protection" and "liaison" officers to show them what they were to film.
Very democratic....in a North Korean way.
The Tories carried some heavy and unpleasant baggage there and it had to go.
There have been largely token gestures towards the married family in the tax system. It would be a good area for George to focus on in his budget.
The wheel is turning on multiculturalism and the government is playing a role in that.
What else do you think they should be doing for social Conservatives?