Tick tick tick...I know where his story is from, but I don't know if we are allowed to post the link. Not a tinfoil hat job, exaronews story, but it makes some very big claims.
Whatever else it will be a rather large stick that UKIP can club the Tories with when the allegations about UKIP candidates are made.
Very surprised to see MoS running it at a time like this, although I get the impression that they are a little more sympathetic to UKIP than the Daily version.
That will probably be the immediate effect, UKIP can say that the problems with their candidates are less unusual than the problems with the Tory candidates.
Just think about the public reaction: UKIP candidate suspended for controversial comments, yawn. Tory Asian candidate (I repeat that, ASIAN) plots with EDL to fix the election, "expletives deleted"!
Serius value on Labour in the markets? I reckon so.
So presumably you'll be putting your money on Labour then?
I may be putting my X on Labour.
I felt the budget was me being lectured at by someone who didn't really get ordinary people.
Which bit of increased personal allowances, freeze on fuel duty, reduced taxation on booze and savings and help for FTB's does not get ordinary people?
Freeze on fuel duty when raw prices have tumbled. FTB help? 3k or whatever. Great but still unaffordable. Personal allowances yeah well great but not exactly huge was it? As for beer: 1p off a pint. Big deal.
It was a weird budget: fiddling around with little bits n' pieces like church roofs and Agincourt [wtf?]. Income tax cut was what was screaming out, a bit of pay back for the hard times.
Anyway that's just me. It left me feeling cold & thinking of voting Labour.
Think you will find that an increase in the personal allowance is an income tax cut.
kind of. Would like to have seen the basic rate cut. Margaret Thatcher would've done it.
anyhow judging by the polls i evidently aren't alone thinking the budget was a bit crap.
It was rubbish.
To be honest they should have just banged in an IHT cut, and dared the Lib Dems to vote it down.
That'd probably have got LD - Lab switchers heading back to the Lib Dems and won the Tories the election.
Serius value on Labour in the markets? I reckon so.
So presumably you'll be putting your money on Labour then?
I may be putting my X on Labour.
I felt the budget was me being lectured at by someone who didn't really get ordinary people.
Which bit of increased personal allowances, freeze on fuel duty, reduced taxation on booze and savings and help for FTB's does not get ordinary people?
Freeze on fuel duty when raw prices have tumbled. FTB help? 3k or whatever. Great but still unaffordable. Personal allowances yeah well great but not exactly huge was it? As for beer: 1p off a pint. Big deal.
It was a weird budget: fiddling around with little bits n' pieces like church roofs and Agincourt [wtf?]. Income tax cut was what was screaming out, a bit of pay back for the hard times.
Anyway that's just me. It left me feeling cold & thinking of voting Labour.
Think you will find that an increase in the personal allowance is an income tax cut.
£40 a year for the next 2 years was the budget announcement on personal allowance
Just flicked on the News...and it is noticeable that Ed is there giving the big I Am about the debates, in full on GE campaign mode...where is Dave with only a few weeks to go....
I actually think it is good that Cameron does have days where he isn't on full PM mode, just like I thought it was very sensible that Blair took fairly regular breaks...otherwise you end up like Brown...but with a few weeks to go to a GE, you thought you might just be foot to the floor trying to grab every vote you can.
Cameron usually seems to leave it until the last minute.
Serius value on Labour in the markets? I reckon so.
So presumably you'll be putting your money on Labour then?
I may be putting my X on Labour.
I felt the budget was me being lectured at by someone who didn't really get ordinary people.
Which bit of increased personal allowances, freeze on fuel duty, reduced taxation on booze and savings and help for FTB's does not get ordinary people?
Freeze on fuel duty when raw prices have tumbled. FTB help? 3k or whatever. Great but still unaffordable. Personal allowances yeah well great but not exactly huge was it? As for beer: 1p off a pint. Big deal.
It was a weird budget: fiddling around with little bits n' pieces like church roofs and Agincourt [wtf?]. Income tax cut was what was screaming out, a bit of pay back for the hard times.
Anyway that's just me. It left me feeling cold & thinking of voting Labour.
Think you will find that an increase in the personal allowance is an income tax cut.
£40 a year for the next 2 years was the budget announcement on personal allowance
If the government had announced an extra £40 a year in tax, I am sure you would have been banging on about the evil government hammering the poor, again.
Serius value on Labour in the markets? I reckon so.
So presumably you'll be putting your money on Labour then?
I may be putting my X on Labour.
I felt the budget was me being lectured at by someone who didn't really get ordinary people.
Which bit of increased personal allowances, freeze on fuel duty, reduced taxation on booze and savings and help for FTB's does not get ordinary people?
Freeze on fuel duty when raw prices have tumbled. FTB help? 3k or whatever. Great but still unaffordable. Personal allowances yeah well great but not exactly huge was it? As for beer: 1p off a pint. Big deal.
It was a weird budget: fiddling around with little bits n' pieces like church roofs and Agincourt [wtf?]. Income tax cut was what was screaming out, a bit of pay back for the hard times.
Anyway that's just me. It left me feeling cold & thinking of voting Labour.
Think you will find that an increase in the personal allowance is an income tax cut.
£40 a year for the next 2 years was the budget announcement on personal allowance
Yeah you're right, they should have given us fuck all.
PtP- I think all seven of the leaders would rather not have the debates and blame one or the other (or best case scenario all the others) for them not taking place. Dave and Ed will be grateful only to have to go through the damned thing once. They all will require at least one of the following before participating; beta blockers, booze, grade A skunk or failing that some moroccan brown, several sessions of psychological counselling or valium. The value bet will be how many keel over with the pressure of it all.
Basically, they are all bothered, most notably by their own heads, but in smaller amounts by each other, the cameras, the press, the audience, the questioner. They are all in terror about screwing up, and every moment until the event takes place, they will be haunted and lose sleep by the spectre of these fu.kin debates. Who would want to be a political leader? I almost (almost) feel sorry for them.
Serius value on Labour in the markets? I reckon so.
So presumably you'll be putting your money on Labour then?
I may be putting my X on Labour.
I felt the budget was me being lectured at by someone who didn't really get ordinary people.
Which bit of increased personal allowances, freeze on fuel duty, reduced taxation on booze and savings and help for FTB's does not get ordinary people?
Freeze on fuel duty when raw prices have tumbled. FTB help? 3k or whatever. Great but still unaffordable. Personal allowances yeah well great but not exactly huge was it? As for beer: 1p off a pint. Big deal.
It was a weird budget: fiddling around with little bits n' pieces like church roofs and Agincourt [wtf?]. Income tax cut was what was screaming out, a bit of pay back for the hard times.
Anyway that's just me. It left me feeling cold & thinking of voting Labour.
Think you will find that an increase in the personal allowance is an income tax cut.
£40 a year for the next 2 years was the budget announcement on personal allowance
How is it only £40 a year? If the allowance is increased by £1000, surely you are saving ~£200 by not paying tax on it?
One decent thing to come of the Muslim terrorist murders in Paris is that those on here that used to call French people 'frogs' have learned their lesson
Maybe an atrocity in Ireland will see the end of 'bog trotter'?
Coming after the isam fridge contents scandal, I sense your inner LD breaking out of its chains!
Ha yes I can't have tub thumping nationalism or real ale, so maybe!!
Was having dinner w my business partner earlier in the month in a Persian restaurant.. He is Dutch, his gf Iranian, and we talked politics and immigration. She's having trouble with getting a visa
He was quite surprised really that I am a kipper but don't think British is best or England is better than anywhere else etc.. I actually get quite embarrassed when people talk that shite, they must be putting it on
Course I love England, I am English, like you love your family. Doesn't mean we are the best though
Tub thumping nationalism has its place in sport and war, but I will pass over that.
What scandalises me is the real ale issue!
Do not confess to me that you are a partaker of the ghastly eurofizz when there is a well kept pint of Courage Directors on handpump.
Surely we have grounds for deportation to the colonies right there!
Spitfire is my current favourite, closely followed by Bombardier, will happily settle for a Directors though!
Also liking Aspells cider, not convinced it likes me though.
Whitstable Bay Gold is excellent (also a Sheps beer)
Black Sheep Gold is also a fine drop.
Both are "Golden" beers but not as sweet as the summer/ autumn versions often are-a proper session beer Unusually both are almost as good bottled as on draft.
Thornbridge Jaipur. Or Oakham ales Scarlet Macaw.
Well worth seeking out on draft but the bottled versions are to be found in Waitrose.
Best to wear sandals while drowning your LD sorrows.
Not tried any of those although I like the sound of Thornbridge Jaipur for the name if nothing else-is it a micro brewery !!
And i am NOT a LibDem!!
Perhaps for the election campaign we could all suggest some Marginal Constituency beers.
I nominate Gadds No 3 -brewed in Thanet S and developed by the ex-brewer of Firkins Dog Bolter-not too heavy but with real depth of flavour.
DAVID MILIBAND still wants to be prime minister and would seek to return to Britain if Labour loses the general election so he can lead the party, according a senior figure in the charity he heads in New York.
Just scrolled back through some of Purseybear's comments on previous threads. I hope he'll forgive me for saying it's not really obvious that all the posts are written by the same person.
Surprisingly little budget ramping in Sunday Papers.
I am shocked TBH
Well they jumped the shark on Wednesday, especially the Sun. Besides there is that little front page story (soon to be on all newspapers) about a Tory Asian candidate plotting with the EDL to get elected.
Serius value on Labour in the markets? I reckon so.
So presumably you'll be putting your money on Labour then?
I may be putting my X on Labour.
I felt the budget was me being lectured at by someone who didn't really get ordinary people.
Which bit of increased personal allowances, freeze on fuel duty, reduced taxation on booze and savings and help for FTB's does not get ordinary people?
Freeze on fuel duty when raw prices have tumbled. FTB help? 3k or whatever. Great but still unaffordable. Personal allowances yeah well great but not exactly huge was it? As for beer: 1p off a pint. Big deal.
It was a weird budget: fiddling around with little bits n' pieces like church roofs and Agincourt [wtf?]. Income tax cut was what was screaming out, a bit of pay back for the hard times.
Anyway that's just me. It left me feeling cold & thinking of voting Labour.
Think you will find that an increase in the personal allowance is an income tax cut.
£40 a year for the next 2 years was the budget announcement on personal allowance
If the government had announced an extra £40 a year in tax, I am sure you would have been banging on about the evil government hammering the poor, again.
Only because they gave 50p ers a massive cut.
Both unfair but more than anything politically stupid.
I am sure Clegg will remind us that Tories wanted to double that cut but he vetoed it.
One decent thing to come of the Muslim terrorist murders in Paris is that those on here that used to call French people 'frogs' have learned their lesson
Maybe an atrocity in Ireland will see the end of 'bog trotter'?
Coming after the isam fridge contents scandal, I sense your inner LD breaking out of its chains!
Ha yes I can't have tub thumping nationalism or real ale, so maybe!!
Was having dinner w my business partner earlier in the month in a Persian restaurant.. He is Dutch, his gf Iranian, and we talked politics and immigration. She's having trouble with getting a visa
He was quite surprised really that I am a kipper but don't think British is best or England is better than anywhere else etc.. I actually get quite embarrassed when people talk that shite, they must be putting it on
Course I love England, I am English, like you love your family. Doesn't mean we are the best though
Tub thumping nationalism has its place in sport and war, but I will pass over that.
What scandalises me is the real ale issue!
Do not confess to me that you are a partaker of the ghastly eurofizz when there is a well kept pint of Courage Directors on handpump.
Surely we have grounds for deportation to the colonies right there!
Spitfire is my current favourite, closely followed by Bombardier, will happily settle for a Directors though!
Also liking Aspells cider, not convinced it likes me though.
Whitstable Bay Gold is excellent (also a Sheps beer)
Black Sheep Gold is also a fine drop.
Both are "Golden" beers but not as sweet as the summer/ autumn versions often are-a proper session beer Unusually both are almost as good bottled as on draft.
Thornbridge Jaipur. Or Oakham ales Scarlet Macaw.
Well worth seeking out on draft but the bottled versions are to be found in Waitrose.
Best to wear sandals while drowning your LD sorrows.
Not tried any of those although I like the sound of Thornbridge Jaipur for the name if nothing else-is it a micro brewery !!
And i am NOT a LibDem!!
Perhaps for the election campaign we could all suggest some Marginal Constituency beers.
I nominate Gadds No 3 -brewed in Thanet S and developed by the ex-brewer of Firkins Dog Bolter-not too heavy but with real depth of flavour.
Dog Bolter, that brings back memories of actually losing my memory!
DAVID MILIBAND still wants to be prime minister and would seek to return to Britain if Labour loses the general election so he can lead the party, according a senior figure in the charity he heads in New York.
He isn't an MP anymore, and he is yesterdays news.
And if I offered you 4/9 heads, and 9/4 tails, which would you choose?
The markets are weird. The assumption that this is somehow and magically going to swing the tories way is irrational. It may be true but it is irrational. The only rational decision at the moment is to back Labour for most seats. If Ed had not screwed up Scotland it would be a no brainer to back them for a majority. I have been saying since January I just don't get it.
DAVID MILIBAND still wants to be prime minister and would seek to return to Britain if Labour loses the general election so he can lead the party, according a senior figure in the charity he heads in New York.
First of all he won't be an MP so how would that work? Secondly I think he would have to find a way to move beyond new labour. They brought the country the worst financial crisis in our history and I'm not sur he found a way to deal with that in the leadership election. Indeed his attempt to defend every last aspect of new labour in spite of Iraq and Lehmans Bros was bizarre.
PtP- I think all seven of the leaders would rather not have the debates and blame one or the other (or best case scenario all the others) for them not taking place. Dave and Ed will be grateful only to have to go through the damned thing once. They all will require at least one of the following before participating; beta blockers, booze, grade A skunk or failing that some moroccan brown, several sessions of psychological counselling or valium. The value bet will be how many keel over with the pressure of it all.
Basically, they are all bothered, most notably by their own heads, but in smaller amounts by each other, the cameras, the press, the audience, the questioner. They are all in terror about screwing up, and every moment until the event takes place, they will be haunted and lose sleep by the spectre of these fu.kin debates. Who would want to be a political leader? I almost (almost) feel sorry for them.
Really?
You may be right but I rather thought they enjoyed them. Dave did passably well last time and Ed has the qualifications to do so too. He's certainly not noticeably outshone each week at Parliamentary Questions. He also has the opportunity to demonstrate that he is not the type of village idiot some might suppose from a reading of the MSM, or PB.com on a bad day.
And the others? You don't think they might like a bit of attention?
Serius value on Labour in the markets? I reckon so.
So presumably you'll be putting your money on Labour then?
I may be putting my X on Labour.
I felt the budget was me being lectured at by someone who didn't really get ordinary people.
Which bit of increased personal allowances, freeze on fuel duty, reduced taxation on booze and savings and help for FTB's does not get ordinary people?
Freeze on fuel duty when raw prices have tumbled. FTB help? 3k or whatever. Great but still unaffordable. Personal allowances yeah well great but not exactly huge was it? As for beer: 1p off a pint. Big deal.
It was a weird budget: fiddling around with little bits n' pieces like church roofs and Agincourt [wtf?]. Income tax cut was what was screaming out, a bit of pay back for the hard times.
Anyway that's just me. It left me feeling cold & thinking of voting Labour.
Think you will find that an increase in the personal allowance is an income tax cut.
£40 a year for the next 2 years was the budget announcement on personal allowance
How is it only £40 a year? If the allowance is increased by £1000, surely you are saving ~£200 by not paying tax on it?
The budget announced that in 2016/7 the personal allowance would rise by £200 to £10.800 and in 2017/18 this would rise to £11,000
The 10,600 for 2015/16 was already announced last year
And if I offered you 4/9 heads, and 9/4 tails, which would you choose?
Fantastic Peter.
You know, I keep helping myself in to the majority market in the most seats betfair, not because I think Labour will win more seats (I really, really do not have a clue, and am inclined to think the Tories will shade it) but because I fully expect people to start taking note of the polls and betting accordingly which they normally do in elections, but are not doing at the minute.
DAVID MILIBAND still wants to be prime minister and would seek to return to Britain if Labour loses the general election so he can lead the party, according a senior figure in the charity he heads in New York.
First of all he won't be an MP so how would that work? Secondly I think he would have to find a way to move beyond new labour. They brought the country the worst financial crisis in our history and I'm not sur he found a way to deal with that in the leadership election. Indeed his attempt to defend every last aspect of new labour in spite of Iraq and Lehmans Bros was bizarre.
Maybe the member for Doncaster North could be persuaded to step down? Though the by-election would hardly be a penalty kick.
Serius value on Labour in the markets? I reckon so.
So presumably you'll be putting your money on Labour then?
I may be putting my X on Labour.
I felt the budget was me being lectured at by someone who didn't really get ordinary people.
Which bit of increased personal allowances, freeze on fuel duty, reduced taxation on booze and savings and help for FTB's does not get ordinary people?
Freeze on fuel duty when raw prices have tumbled. FTB help? 3k or whatever. Great but still unaffordable. Personal allowances yeah well great but not exactly huge was it? As for beer: 1p off a pint. Big deal.
It was a weird budget: fiddling around with little bits n' pieces like church roofs and Agincourt [wtf?]. Income tax cut was what was screaming out, a bit of pay back for the hard times.
Anyway that's just me. It left me feeling cold & thinking of voting Labour.
Think you will find that an increase in the personal allowance is an income tax cut.
£40 a year for the next 2 years was the budget announcement on personal allowance
How is it only £40 a year? If the allowance is increased by £1000, surely you are saving ~£200 by not paying tax on it?
The budget announced that in 2016/7 the personal allowance would rise by £200 to £10.800 and in 2017/18 this would rise to £11,000
The 10,600 for 2015/16 was already announced last year
Ah I see, it's because of the gradual increase. Still, worth £200/year every year afterwards...
The Tory scandal in Dudley North and the loss of their candidate in the most bizarre political circumstances, might there be more of a chance that UKIP get the seat from Labour if that 24% that planned to vote Tory now just give up, with a LAB 37 UKIP 34 score on the last constituency poll it won't take that many switchers.
Serius value on Labour in the markets? I reckon so.
So presumably you'll be putting your money on Labour then?
I may be putting my X on Labour.
I felt the budget was me being lectured at by someone who didn't really get ordinary people.
Which bit of increased personal allowances, freeze on fuel duty, reduced taxation on booze and savings and help for FTB's does not get ordinary people?
Freeze on fuel duty when raw prices have tumbled. FTB help? 3k or whatever. Great but still unaffordable. Personal allowances yeah well great but not exactly huge was it? As for beer: 1p off a pint. Big deal.
It was a weird budget: fiddling around with little bits n' pieces like church roofs and Agincourt [wtf?]. Income tax cut was what was screaming out, a bit of pay back for the hard times.
Anyway that's just me. It left me feeling cold & thinking of voting Labour.
Think you will find that an increase in the personal allowance is an income tax cut.
£40 a year for the next 2 years was the budget announcement on personal allowance
How is it only £40 a year? If the allowance is increased by £1000, surely you are saving ~£200 by not paying tax on it?
The budget announced that in 2016/7 the personal allowance would rise by £200 to £10.800 and in 2017/18 this would rise to £11,000
The 10,600 for 2015/16 was already announced last year
Ah I see, it's because of the gradual increase. Still, worth £200/year every year afterwards...
No - only worth £40.00 (20%) - nothing if you don't earn £10,600 already of course.
And if I offered you 4/9 heads, and 9/4 tails, which would you choose?
Fantastic Peter.
You know, I keep helping myself in to the majority market in the most seats betfair, not because I think Labour will win more seats (I really, really do not have a clue, and am inclined to think the Tories will shade it) but because I fully expect people to start taking note of the polls and betting accordingly which they normally do in elections, but are not doing at the minute.
I'm not entirely sure what is fuelling the odds in those markets, Tyson.
Also liking Aspells cider, not convinced it likes me though.
Whitstable Bay Gold is excellent (also a Sheps beer)
Black Sheep Gold is also a fine drop.
Both are "Golden" beers but not as sweet as the summer/ autumn versions often are-a proper session beer Unusually both are almost as good bottled as on draft.
Thornbridge Jaipur. Or Oakham ales Scarlet Macaw.
Well worth seeking out on draft but the bottled versions are to be found in Waitrose.
Best to wear sandals while drowning your LD sorrows.
Not tried any of those although I like the sound of Thornbridge Jaipur for the name if nothing else-is it a micro brewery !!
And i am NOT a LibDem!!
Perhaps for the election campaign we could all suggest some Marginal Constituency beers.
I nominate Gadds No 3 -brewed in Thanet S and developed by the ex-brewer of Firkins Dog Bolter-not too heavy but with real depth of flavour.
Dog Bolter, that brings back memories of actually losing my memory!
I "remember" meeting a friend for a quick beer in the Firkin pub at HerneHill railway station late one morning en-route to a cricket tour in the Reading area in the mid 80's
We eventually arrived in Reading just before midnight and i was dropped for the first 2 days
Serius value on Labour in the markets? I reckon so.
So presumably you'll be putting your money on Labour then?
I may be putting my X on Labour.
I felt the budget was me being lectured at by someone who didn't really get ordinary people.
Which bit of increased personal allowances, freeze on fuel duty, reduced taxation on booze and savings and help for FTB's does not get ordinary people?
Freeze on fuel duty when raw prices have tumbled. FTB help? 3k or whatever. Great but still unaffordable. Personal allowances yeah well great but not exactly huge was it? As for beer: 1p off a pint. Big deal.
It was a weird budget: fiddling around with little bits n' pieces like church roofs and Agincourt [wtf?]. Income tax cut was what was screaming out, a bit of pay back for the hard times.
Anyway that's just me. It left me feeling cold & thinking of voting Labour.
Think you will find that an increase in the personal allowance is an income tax cut.
£40 a year for the next 2 years was the budget announcement on personal allowance
How is it only £40 a year? If the allowance is increased by £1000, surely you are saving ~£200 by not paying tax on it?
The budget announced that in 2016/7 the personal allowance would rise by £200 to £10.800 and in 2017/18 this would rise to £11,000
The 10,600 for 2015/16 was already announced last year
Ah I see, it's because of the gradual increase. Still, worth £200/year every year afterwards...
No - only worth £40.00 (20%) - nothing if you don't earn £10,600 already of course.
Well, compared to the allowance for the current tax year.
Dog Bolter, that brings back memories of actually losing my memory!
I "remember" meeting a friend for a quick beer in the Firkin pub at HerneHill railway station late one morning en-route to a cricket tour in the Reading area in the mid 80's
We eventually arrived in Reading just before midnight and i was dropped for the first 2 days
DAVID MILIBAND still wants to be prime minister and would seek to return to Britain if Labour loses the general election so he can lead the party, according a senior figure in the charity he heads in New York.
Purely from a betting perspective, the fact that he isn't leader makes this present one interesting. With David as leader, we would all be looking further afield for betting opportunities because this one would be a slam dank with no value. As it stands now there is loads of liquidity and loads of potential. I have to thank Labour's selection of Ed for that.
" First of all he won't be an MP so how would that work? Secondly I think he would have to find a way to move beyond new labour."
You raise an interesting point which is that if Labour do win the election which seems more likely today than at any time this year it will have been 100% Ed's victory and owed nothing to the Blairite malcontents including his brother
He was quite surprised really that I am a kipper but don't think British is best or England is better than anywhere else etc.. I actually get quite embarrassed when people talk that shite, they must be putting it on
Course I love England, I am English, like you love your family. Doesn't mean we are the best though
Not convinced you're a natural Kipper, honestly - I don't mean I don't believe you, just that I don't think you'll find it a long-term home.
I see that Priti Patel is out and about in Broxtowe on Thursday. Does Jack's ARSE still have it as TCTC?
FWIW I'm now reasonably confident of winning. Up to a couple of months ago I'd have just said "hopeful", but with the free-spending ,long campaign ending, I don't think there are enough "don't knows" to pull it back for the Tories now. But DYOR etc.
Nationally, the prediction of a little Tory budget bounce that subsided back to a tie looks about right, doesn't it?
Dog Bolter, that brings back memories of actually losing my memory!
I "remember" meeting a friend for a quick beer in the Firkin pub at HerneHill railway station late one morning en-route to a cricket tour in the Reading area in the mid 80's
We eventually arrived in Reading just before midnight and i was dropped for the first 2 days
An amazing beer
I was a regular at the Goose and Firkin at Elephant and Castle when a student in London.
Dogbolter was a hell of a beer, though with a packed pub and proper pub music frome Frankie Flame, both spillage and hangovers were pretty severe. Happy days!
He was quite surprised really that I am a kipper but don't think British is best or England is better than anywhere else etc.. I actually get quite embarrassed when people talk that shite, they must be putting it on
Course I love England, I am English, like you love your family. Doesn't mean we are the best though
Not convinced you're a natural Kipper, honestly - I don't mean I don't believe you, just that I don't think you'll find it a long-term home.
I see that Priti Patel is out and about in Broxtowe on Thursday. Does Jack's ARSE still have it as TCTC?
FWIW I'm now reasonably confident of winning. Up to a couple of months ago I'd have just said "hopeful", but with the free-spending ,long campaign ending, I don't think there are enough "don't knows" to pull it back for the Tories now. But DYOR etc.
Nationally, the prediction of a little Tory budget bounce that subsided back to a tie looks about right, doesn't it?
Nick. Have you had much support from Labour HQ in terms of: Money High profile visits Ground troops
You may be right but I rather thought they enjoyed them. Dave did passably well last time and Ed has the qualifications to do so too. He's certainly not noticeably outshone each week at Parliamentary Questions. He also has the opportunity to demonstrate that he is not the type of village idiot some might suppose from a reading of the MSM, or PB.com on a bad day.
And the others? You don't think they might like a bit of attention?
Peter I have worked with enough narcissistic people- a necessary criteria to want to be a political leader (who else believes that they have the qualities to be PM?); although deluded about their own abilities, they are plagued by self doubt, mood swings, uber critical about all things. They love and adore the attention- it feeds their narcissism, but it comes with at a great personal price to themselves, and the people around them.
George Osborne's stated justification for abolishing the 50p income tax rate was that, due to mass avoidance, it raised "just a third of the £3bn" expected. Even by Osborne's standards, this was a peculiarly unconvincing argument. It's true that £16bn of income was shifted into the previous tax year - when the rate was still 40p - but this was a trick the rich could only have played once. Moreover, as the government has acknowledged in other instances, tax avoidance isn't an argument for cutting tax, it's an argument for limiting avoidance.
But leave this aside. The fact remains that, as Osborne conceded, the 50p rate raised £1bn (and had the potential to raise far more). Not a transformative amount, to be sure (the deficit is forecast to be £120.9bn this year), but hardly to be sniffed at. Indeed, it's precisely this argument that the government makes when justifying "tough" measures such as the "bedroom tax" (which it is hoped will save £465m a year): every little helps.
Osborne claims that the reduction in the top rate to 45p will cost the government just £100m but, once again, this is based on an anomalous year's data. Having brought forward their income in order to avoid the 50p rate in its first year, the rich have now delayed it in order to benefit from the reduction to 45p (again, a trick they can only play once) this year. The reality is that the cost of scrapping the rate is likely to be far higher, with up to £3bn in revenue forsaken. But as I show below, even if we accept the anomalous figure of £1bn, a significant number of the welfare cuts introduced by the government could have been avoided if the 50p rate had remained in place.
Hopefully Clarkson and co will leave the BBC and join Sky, ITV, etc. BBC will be down about 65m per year. A reduction in headcount will be on the cards. Either that or they jack up the license fee due to their failure to effectively manage talent.
Of course the richer are paying more tax . Not content with a massive tax cut , they have also awarded themselves on average 10-15 % pay rises plus increased bonuses .
£40 a year as announced in the budget barely covers inflation so not even worth that in real terms
Of course the 50p to 45p cut gave a tax cut of £40,000 to each and every millionaire in Britain. Not just for one year but for each and every year.
We are clearly all in it together.
Couple of questions to answer here:
1. Did the reduction to 45% actually raise more, if so is the push by Socialists such as yourself to revert to 50% designed to punish those that do well, even if it raises less money? That would make it a spiteful ideological move that costs the nation money, no?
2. Your darling Gordon held the rate at 40% for the vast majority of his 13 years, it has been higher than that for five years now, why did Gordon get it so badly wrong?
Steve Garner. What because i,m not dancing up for joy saying what a great budget that was? For 3 days I've expressed on here my misgivings and they've been proved right.
Of course the richer are paying more tax . Not content with a massive tax cut , they have also awarded themselves on average 10-15 % pay rises plus increased bonuses .
He was quite surprised really that I am a kipper but don't think British is best or England is better than anywhere else etc.. I actually get quite embarrassed when people talk that shite, they must be putting it on
Course I love England, I am English, like you love your family. Doesn't mean we are the best though
Not convinced you're a natural Kipper, honestly - I don't mean I don't believe you, just that I don't think you'll find it a long-term home.
I see that Priti Patel is out and about in Broxtowe on Thursday. Does Jack's ARSE still have it as TCTC?
FWIW I'm now reasonably confident of winning. Up to a couple of months ago I'd have just said "hopeful", but with the free-spending ,long campaign ending, I don't think there are enough "don't knows" to pull it back for the Tories now. But DYOR etc.
Nationally, the prediction of a little Tory budget bounce that subsided back to a tie looks about right, doesn't it?
In the constituency Im campaigning in which has a con held con/lab marginal majority under 1,000. Im not seeing *any* swing to Labour at all. Straight switchers from Con to Lab are pretty much statistically zero and we are coming across a lot of labour who are just not voting or voting somewhere else.
I dont think anyside can be confident, because no one knows where that squeesed lib dem vote is going to go, and who loses out the most to UKIP. I know local labour are not having the canvassing results they expected.
Of course the richer are paying more tax . Not content with a massive tax cut , they have also awarded themselves on average 10-15 % pay rises plus increased bonuses .
The fundamental difference between Labour and Tory is that Labour want to share a smaller cake more fairly - the Tories want a larger cake to share.
The rich paying more tax is just what the country wants isn't it? Or would you rather have everyone earning £10,600 a year and no one paying anything in income tax whatsoever? Because that is the logical result of your economic 'argument'!
FWIW I'm now reasonably confident of winning. Up to a couple of months ago I'd have just said "hopeful", but with the free-spending ,long campaign ending, I don't think there are enough "don't knows" to pull it back for the Tories now. But DYOR etc.
Nationally, the prediction of a little Tory budget bounce that subsided back to a tie looks about right, doesn't it?
Nick. Have you had much support from Labour HQ in terms of: Money High profile visits Ground troops
I would have thought the Tories have much bigger priorities than salvaging Broxtowe to be honest, especially considering the nature of tonights polls. 5-10% Tory poll leads, then by all means go fishing further afield, but surely they need to focus on seats they have a very good chance of defending from the R(ed) peril.
£40 a year as announced in the budget barely covers inflation so not even worth that in real terms
Of course the 50p to 45p cut gave a tax cut of £40,000 to each and every millionaire in Britain. Not just for one year but for each and every year.
We are clearly all in it together.
Couple of questions to answer here:
1. Did the reduction to 45% actually raise more, if so is the push by Socialists such as yourself to revert to 50% designed to punish those that do well, even if it raises less money? That would make it a spiteful ideological move that costs the nation money, no?
2. Your darling Gordon held the rate at 40% for the vast majority of his 13 years, it has been higher than that for five years now, why did Gordon get it so badly wrong?
Read my 10.34 post.
Even Osbourne admits cutting the rate cost at least £1bn (independent analysis says could be £3bn)
By the way the bedroom tax saves £450m ie less than half the giveaway as conceded by GO
I see that Priti Patel is out and about in Broxtowe on Thursday. Does Jack's ARSE still have it as TCTC?
FWIW I'm now reasonably confident of winning. Up to a couple of months ago I'd have just said "hopeful", but with the free-spending ,long campaign ending, I don't think there are enough "don't knows" to pull it back for the Tories now. But DYOR etc.
Nationally, the prediction of a little Tory budget bounce that subsided back to a tie looks about right, doesn't it?
There's nothing personal in my sincere hope that you lose. We should all be hoping Labour lose there for the wider benefit of the country - regardless of the desire of some on PB who wish to feed your gold-plated pension pot. And I wish Soubry could lose as well as she's basically Labour-lite.... so I'm going to be disappointed by the result regardless.
With a bit of luck on General Election night the previous couple of declarations will be LibDem losses (regardless of who they lose to; don't care) so I'll be on a high from those and won't be too bothered by Broxtowe.
In the constituency Im campaigning in which has a con held con/lab marginal majority under 1,000. Im not seeing *any* swing to Labour at all. Straight switchers from Con to Lab are pretty much statistically zero and we are coming across a lot of labour who are just not voting or voting somewhere else.
I dont think anyside can be confident, because no one knows where that squeesed lib dem vote is going to go, and who loses out the most to UKIP. I know local labour are not having the canvassing results they expected.
I agree that Con->Lab switchers are negligible (as are Lab->Con). I'm reasonably confident because we're IMO getting most of the 17% LibDems (there is still no official LD candidate and this is very much Red Liberal territory - we're in local coalition with them) and neither UKIP nor the Greens seem to be getting anywhere much. The swing needed is 0.4%...
Republican Tory: I won't go into detail here, but the help received has exceeded every previous election that I've fought put together. Basically, my previous experience has been that HQ either thought I was sure to win (2001) or sure to lose (1997, 2005, 2010), so they never bothered much - in 2005 we got half a helper for half the campaign, and then they gave up and sent him somewhere else. This time, not so.
£40 a year as announced in the budget barely covers inflation so not even worth that in real terms
Of course the 50p to 45p cut gave a tax cut of £40,000 to each and every millionaire in Britain. Not just for one year but for each and every year.
We are clearly all in it together.
Couple of questions to answer here:
1. Did the reduction to 45% actually raise more, if so is the push by Socialists such as yourself to revert to 50% designed to punish those that do well, even if it raises less money? That would make it a spiteful ideological move that costs the nation money, no?
2. Your darling Gordon held the rate at 40% for the vast majority of his 13 years, it has been higher than that for five years now, why did Gordon get it so badly wrong?
Nige4England- I tell you one thing, the last few years have never been so easy for people with money to make money, loads of it. Crisis- what crisis. For people with money, with assets, properties, stocks shares, pension funds- the money just rolls in. You don't even have to work that hard (or at all even) to accumulate- more and more and more. It just comes. And I'm not speaking here out of envy. So maybe higher taxes could work don't you think?
George Osborne's stated justification for abolishing the 50p income tax rate was that, due to mass avoidance, it raised "just a third of the £3bn" expected. Even by Osborne's standards, this was a peculiarly unconvincing argument. It's true that £16bn of income was shifted into the previous tax year - when the rate was still 40p - but this was a trick the rich could only have played once. Moreover, as the government has acknowledged in other instances, tax avoidance isn't an argument for cutting tax, it's an argument for limiting avoidance.
But leave this aside. The fact remains that, as Osborne conceded, the 50p rate raised £1bn (and had the potential to raise far more). Not a transformative amount, to be sure (the deficit is forecast to be £120.9bn this year), but hardly to be sniffed at. Indeed, it's precisely this argument that the government makes when justifying "tough" measures such as the "bedroom tax" (which it is hoped will save £465m a year): every little helps.
Osborne claims that the reduction in the top rate to 45p will cost the government just £100m but, once again, this is based on an anomalous year's data. Having brought forward their income in order to avoid the 50p rate in its first year, the rich have now delayed it in order to benefit from the reduction to 45p (again, a trick they can only play once) this year. The reality is that the cost of scrapping the rate is likely to be far higher, with up to £3bn in revenue forsaken. But as I show below, even if we accept the anomalous figure of £1bn, a significant number of the welfare cuts introduced by the government could have been avoided if the 50p rate had remained in place.
Thanks for the New Statesman's view from Apr 2013
IFS - ''So in fact there is little additional evidence to suggest that a 50p rate would raise more than was estimated by HMRC back in 2012.'' ''at the moment, the best evidence we have still suggests that raising the top rate of tax would raise little revenue and make, at best, a marginal contribution to reducing the budget deficit '' http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/7066
Labour base their claims on projections before the event not facts
£40 a year as announced in the budget barely covers inflation so not even worth that in real terms
Of course the 50p to 45p cut gave a tax cut of £40,000 to each and every millionaire in Britain. Not just for one year but for each and every year.
We are clearly all in it together.
As you know, that is either misinformation or a lie.
Those earning one million pounds per year had a 40k (or there abouts) reduction in tax payable.
Millionaires earning 200k per year had a tax liability reduced by about 5K per year.
Correct happy to accept that
Good, I guess that means you won't repeat that bollocks line again as you know it is a lie.
Every millionaire with annual income of £1m received a £40,000pa tax cut
The latest budget gave standard rate taxpayers a £40pa tax cut.
Presumably you are happy to accept that?
Someone with a post deduction income of 1 million paid 20% on £42 000, 40% on £108 000 and 45% on £850 000; to a total of about £412 000. Seems like a lot of tax to me.
Someone on £26 000 post deduction income would have paid 20% on £15 000; so about £3000.
So the first would have paid roughly the tax of 130 average earnins taxpayers. Sounds as if we need to encourage high earners to me!
£40 a year as announced in the budget barely covers inflation so not even worth that in real terms
Of course the 50p to 45p cut gave a tax cut of £40,000 to each and every millionaire in Britain. Not just for one year but for each and every year.
We are clearly all in it together.
Couple of questions to answer here:
1. Did the reduction to 45% actually raise more, if so is the push by Socialists such as yourself to revert to 50% designed to punish those that do well, even if it raises less money? That would make it a spiteful ideological move that costs the nation money, no?
2. Your darling Gordon held the rate at 40% for the vast majority of his 13 years, it has been higher than that for five years now, why did Gordon get it so badly wrong?
Read my 10.34 post.
Even Osbourne admits cutting the rate cost at least £1bn (independent analysis says could be £3bn)
By the way the bedroom tax saves £450m ie less than half the giveaway as conceded by GO
How old is that Osbourne quote, because I read that more money is now raised.
Why don't you answer my second point?
If the bedroom tax is so wicked why did Labour introduce it to the private rented sector?
Socialists are the most dimwitted hypocritical bunch of idiots known to man.
£40 a year as announced in the budget barely covers inflation so not even worth that in real terms
Of course the 50p to 45p cut gave a tax cut of £40,000 to each and every millionaire in Britain. Not just for one year but for each and every year.
We are clearly all in it together.
Couple of questions to answer here:
1. Did the reduction to 45% actually raise more, if so is the push by Socialists such as yourself to revert to 50% designed to punish those that do well, even if it raises less money? That would make it a spiteful ideological move that costs the nation money, no?
2. Your darling Gordon held the rate at 40% for the vast majority of his 13 years, it has been higher than that for five years now, why did Gordon get it so badly wrong?
Nige4England- I tell you one thing, the last few years have never been so easy for people with money to make money, loads of it. Crisis- what crisis. For people with money, with assets, properties, stocks shares, pension funds- the money just rolls in. You don't even have to work that hard (or at all even) to accumulate- more and more and more. It just comes. And I'm not speaking here out of envy. So maybe higher taxes could work don't you think?
A key Tory Election candidate was suspended last night after plotting with far-Right extremists to stir up racial hatred in a cynical bid to win votes.
..... and PB Tories kept quiet about this. Who are the fruitcakes now?
Interesting tweet from Mike on timing: Opinium finished their survey on Thursday, at peak Budget reporting time. Survation (and YouGov) finished today.
£40 a year as announced in the budget barely covers inflation so not even worth that in real terms
Of course the 50p to 45p cut gave a tax cut of £40,000 to each and every millionaire in Britain. Not just for one year but for each and every year.
We are clearly all in it together.
Couple of questions to answer here:
1. Did the reduction to 45% actually raise more, if so is the push by Socialists such as yourself to revert to 50% designed to punish those that do well, even if it raises less money? That would make it a spiteful ideological move that costs the nation money, no?
2. Your darling Gordon held the rate at 40% for the vast majority of his 13 years, it has been higher than that for five years now, why did Gordon get it so badly wrong?
Read my 10.34 post.
Even Osbourne admits cutting the rate cost at least £1bn (independent analysis says could be £3bn)
By the way the bedroom tax saves £450m ie less than half the giveaway as conceded by GO
How old is that Osbourne quote, because I read that more money is now raised.
Why don't you answer my second point?
If the bedroom tax is so wicked why did Labour introduce it to the private rented sector?
Socialists are the most dimwitted hypocritical bunch of idiots known to man.
The under occupancy surcharge is really a rather communistic approach to the allocation of housing "to each according to their needs".
It serves not to raise money, but to reallocate government subsidised housing (whether private sector or public sector) to those in most need of it. The principle is a fine one, and needed while there is a shortage of housing. I would have only applied the surcharge after the tennant had refused a reasonable offer of a nearby smaller property.
£40 a year as announced in the budget barely covers inflation so not even worth that in real terms
Of course the 50p to 45p cut gave a tax cut of £40,000 to each and every millionaire in Britain. Not just for one year but for each and every year.
We are clearly all in it together.
As you know, that is either misinformation or a lie.
Those earning one million pounds per year had a 40k (or there abouts) reduction in tax payable.
Millionaires earning 200k per year had a tax liability reduced by about 5K per year.
Correct happy to accept that
Good, I guess that means you won't repeat that bollocks line again as you know it is a lie.
Every millionaire with annual income of £1m received a £40,000pa tax cut
The latest budget gave standard rate taxpayers a £40pa tax cut.
Presumably you are happy to accept that?
Someone with a post deduction income of 1 million paid 20% on £42 000, 40% on £108 000 and 45% on £850 000; to a total of about £412 000. Seems like a lot of tax to me.
Someone on £26 000 post deduction income would have paid 20% on £15 000; so about £3000.
So the first would have paid roughly the tax of 130 average earnins taxpayers. Sounds as if we need to encourage high earners to me!
Are you sure you are a Lib Dem you appear to favour almost all Tory policies as far as I can see.
£40 a year as announced in the budget barely covers inflation so not even worth that in real terms
Of course the 50p to 45p cut gave a tax cut of £40,000 to each and every millionaire in Britain. Not just for one year but for each and every year.
We are clearly all in it together.
Couple of questions to answer here:
1. Did the reduction to 45% actually raise more, if so is the push by Socialists such as yourself to revert to 50% designed to punish those that do well, even if it raises less money? That would make it a spiteful ideological move that costs the nation money, no?
2. Your darling Gordon held the rate at 40% for the vast majority of his 13 years, it has been higher than that for five years now, why did Gordon get it so badly wrong?
Nige4England- I tell you one thing, the last few years have never been so easy for people with money to make money, loads of it. Crisis- what crisis. For people with money, with assets, properties, stocks shares, pension funds- the money just rolls in. You don't even have to work that hard (or at all even) to accumulate- more and more and more. It just comes. And I'm not speaking here out of envy. So maybe higher taxes could work don't you think?
Are you a typical sample of the moronic labour arguments we can expect from now on?
Comments
https://twitter.com/suttonnick/status/579403103927156737
Just think about the public reaction:
UKIP candidate suspended for controversial comments, yawn.
Tory Asian candidate (I repeat that, ASIAN) plots with EDL to fix the election, "expletives deleted"!
To be honest they should have just banged in an IHT cut, and dared the Lib Dems to vote it down.
That'd probably have got LD - Lab switchers heading back to the Lib Dems and won the Tories the election.
Muslim Tory candidate Afzal Amin “suspended over plot with far-right to stir up racial hatred in bid to win votes”
http://www.expressandstar.com/news/2015/03/21/afzal-amin-suspended-by-conservatives-in-dudley-north/
And if I offered you 4/9 heads, and 9/4 tails, which would you choose?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3005845/Exposed-Star-Tory-candidate-plotted-race-thugs-stage-fake-EDL-demo-cynical-bid-win-votes.html
I am shocked TBH
Night all.
PtP- I think all seven of the leaders would rather not have the debates and blame one or the other (or best case scenario all the others) for them not taking place. Dave and Ed will be grateful only to have to go through the damned thing once. They all will require at least one of the following before participating; beta blockers, booze, grade A skunk or failing that some moroccan brown, several sessions of psychological counselling or valium. The value bet will be how many keel over with the pressure of it all.
Basically, they are all bothered, most notably by their own heads, but in smaller amounts by each other, the cameras, the press, the audience, the questioner. They are all in terror about screwing up, and every moment until the event takes place, they will be haunted and lose sleep by the spectre of these fu.kin debates. Who would want to be a political leader? I almost (almost) feel sorry for them.
And i am NOT a LibDem!!
Perhaps for the election campaign we could all suggest some Marginal Constituency beers.
I nominate Gadds No 3 -brewed in Thanet S and developed by the ex-brewer of Firkins Dog Bolter-not too heavy but with real depth of flavour.
DAVID MILIBAND still wants to be prime minister and would seek to return to Britain if Labour loses the general election so he can lead the party, according a senior figure in the charity he heads in New York.
Surprised that isn't in the Sunday paper as well.
Besides there is that little front page story (soon to be on all newspapers) about a Tory Asian candidate plotting with the EDL to get elected.
Both unfair but more than anything politically stupid.
I am sure Clegg will remind us that Tories wanted to double that cut but he vetoed it.
As i say politically stupid.
Goodnight.
You may be right but I rather thought they enjoyed them. Dave did passably well last time and Ed has the qualifications to do so too. He's certainly not noticeably outshone each week at Parliamentary Questions. He also has the opportunity to demonstrate that he is not the type of village idiot some might suppose from a reading of the MSM, or PB.com on a bad day.
And the others? You don't think they might like a bit of attention?
The 10,600 for 2015/16 was already announced last year
You know, I keep helping myself in to the majority market in the most seats betfair, not because I think Labour will win more seats (I really, really do not have a clue, and am inclined to think the Tories will shade it) but because I fully expect people to start taking note of the polls and betting accordingly which they normally do in elections, but are not doing at the minute.
The Tory scandal in Dudley North and the loss of their candidate in the most bizarre political circumstances, might there be more of a chance that UKIP get the seat from Labour if that 24% that planned to vote Tory now just give up, with a LAB 37 UKIP 34 score on the last constituency poll it won't take that many switchers.
It's certainly not the polls.
Also liking Aspells cider, not convinced it likes me though.
Whitstable Bay Gold is excellent (also a Sheps beer)
Black Sheep Gold is also a fine drop.
Both are "Golden" beers but not as sweet as the summer/ autumn versions often are-a proper session beer
Unusually both are almost as good bottled as on draft.
Thornbridge Jaipur. Or Oakham ales Scarlet Macaw.
Well worth seeking out on draft but the bottled versions are to be found in Waitrose.
Best to wear sandals while drowning your LD sorrows.
Not tried any of those although I like the sound of Thornbridge Jaipur for the name if nothing else-is it a micro brewery !!
And i am NOT a LibDem!!
Perhaps for the election campaign we could all suggest some Marginal Constituency beers.
I nominate Gadds No 3 -brewed in Thanet S and developed by the ex-brewer of Firkins Dog Bolter-not too heavy but with real depth of flavour.
Dog Bolter, that brings back memories of actually losing my memory!
I "remember" meeting a friend for a quick beer in the Firkin pub at HerneHill railway station late one morning en-route to a cricket tour in the Reading area in the mid 80's
We eventually arrived in Reading just before midnight and i was dropped for the first 2 days
An amazing beer
Dog Bolter, that brings back memories of actually losing my memory!
I "remember" meeting a friend for a quick beer in the Firkin pub at HerneHill railway station late one morning en-route to a cricket tour in the Reading area in the mid 80's
We eventually arrived in Reading just before midnight and i was dropped for the first 2 days
An amazing beer
Only one outcome - Con will cream Lab
Anyone who believes otherwise is deluded!
I still hope Con are brave enough to confirm that all welfare apart from OAPs will be scrapped in the manifesto - then it will be 1931 time!
Welfare scrapped = no need for IT just VAT
GN all
Purely from a betting perspective, the fact that he isn't leader makes this present one interesting. With David as leader, we would all be looking further afield for betting opportunities because this one would be a slam dank with no value. As it stands now there is loads of liquidity and loads of potential. I have to thank Labour's selection of Ed for that.
" First of all he won't be an MP so how would that work? Secondly I think he would have to find a way to move beyond new labour."
You raise an interesting point which is that if Labour do win the election which seems more likely today than at any time this year it will have been 100% Ed's victory and owed nothing to the Blairite malcontents including his brother
If what he says is true then she has no-one to blame but herself.
If it is untrue she can sue the ar$e off him.
Or are you just worried that there will be one less member of the labour Gliterati in North London to have dinner with ?
Nationally, the prediction of a little Tory budget bounce that subsided back to a tie looks about right, doesn't it?
Of course the 50p to 45p cut gave a tax cut of £40,000 to each and every millionaire in Britain. Not just for one year but for each and every year.
We are clearly all in it together.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/11487218/Tory-MP-Andrew-Bridgen-accuses-BBC-of-retribution-over-licence-fee-campaign.html
See graph 7:
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/03/budget-2015-in-six-graphs/
Dogbolter was a hell of a beer, though with a packed pub and proper pub music frome Frankie Flame, both spillage and hangovers were pretty severe. Happy days!
http://musicruinedmylife.blogspot.co.uk/2009/09/frankie-flame-dick-barton.html?m=1
Have you had much support from Labour HQ in terms of:
Money
High profile visits
Ground troops
Thank you in advance.
"Did you see that the richer are now paying more tax with the 45p rate than they were with the 50p rate?"
They're earning more or cheating less? What's your point
George Osborne's stated justification for abolishing the 50p income tax rate was that, due to mass avoidance, it raised "just a third of the £3bn" expected. Even by Osborne's standards, this was a peculiarly unconvincing argument. It's true that £16bn of income was shifted into the previous tax year - when the rate was still 40p - but this was a trick the rich could only have played once. Moreover, as the government has acknowledged in other instances, tax avoidance isn't an argument for cutting tax, it's an argument for limiting avoidance.
But leave this aside. The fact remains that, as Osborne conceded, the 50p rate raised £1bn (and had the potential to raise far more). Not a transformative amount, to be sure (the deficit is forecast to be £120.9bn this year), but hardly to be sniffed at. Indeed, it's precisely this argument that the government makes when justifying "tough" measures such as the "bedroom tax" (which it is hoped will save £465m a year): every little helps.
Osborne claims that the reduction in the top rate to 45p will cost the government just £100m but, once again, this is based on an anomalous year's data. Having brought forward their income in order to avoid the 50p rate in its first year, the rich have now delayed it in order to benefit from the reduction to 45p (again, a trick they can only play once) this year. The reality is that the cost of scrapping the rate is likely to be far higher, with up to £3bn in revenue forsaken. But as I show below, even if we accept the anomalous figure of £1bn, a significant number of the welfare cuts introduced by the government could have been avoided if the 50p rate had remained in place.
You lying again?
1. Did the reduction to 45% actually raise more, if so is the push by Socialists such as yourself to revert to 50% designed to punish those that do well, even if it raises less money? That would make it a spiteful ideological move that costs the nation money, no?
2. Your darling Gordon held the rate at 40% for the vast majority of his 13 years, it has been higher than that for five years now, why did Gordon get it so badly wrong?
The tories blew it.
Those earning one million pounds per year had a 40k (or there abouts) reduction in tax payable.
Millionaires earning 200k per year had a tax liability reduced by about 5K per year.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/cheryl-fernandez-versini-says-vote-labour-5379150
*
I dont think anyside can be confident, because no one knows where that squeesed lib dem vote is going to go, and who loses out the most to UKIP. I know local labour are not having the canvassing results they expected.
The rich paying more tax is just what the country wants isn't it? Or would you rather have everyone earning £10,600 a year and no one paying anything in income tax whatsoever? Because that is the logical result of your economic 'argument'!
FWIW I'm now reasonably confident of winning. Up to a couple of months ago I'd have just said "hopeful", but with the free-spending ,long campaign ending, I don't think there are enough "don't knows" to pull it back for the Tories now. But DYOR etc.
Nationally, the prediction of a little Tory budget bounce that subsided back to a tie looks about right, doesn't it?
Nick.
Have you had much support from Labour HQ in terms of:
Money
High profile visits
Ground troops
Thank you in advance.
@RepublicanTory
I would have thought the Tories have much bigger priorities than salvaging Broxtowe to be honest, especially considering the nature of tonights polls. 5-10% Tory poll leads, then by all means go fishing further afield, but surely they need to focus on seats they have a very good chance of defending from the R(ed) peril.
Even Osbourne admits cutting the rate cost at least £1bn (independent analysis says could be £3bn)
By the way the bedroom tax saves £450m ie less than half the giveaway as conceded by GO
Its to stop state handout vermin from claiming even more than they get already - they should get nothing!
Osborne needs to announce welfare cap £00,000 from 16 in the manifesto!
With a bit of luck on General Election night the previous couple of declarations will be LibDem losses (regardless of who they lose to; don't care) so I'll be on a high from those and won't be too bothered by Broxtowe.
The latest budget gave standard rate taxpayers a £40pa tax cut.
Presumably you are happy to accept that?
Definitely off now!
Goodnight!!
Republican Tory: I won't go into detail here, but the help received has exceeded every previous election that I've fought put together. Basically, my previous experience has been that HQ either thought I was sure to win (2001) or sure to lose (1997, 2005, 2010), so they never bothered much - in 2005 we got half a helper for half the campaign, and then they gave up and sent him somewhere else. This time, not so.
The latest budget gave standard rate taxpayers a £40pa tax cut.
Presumably you are happy to accept that?
Nige4England- I tell you one thing, the last few years have never been so easy for people with money to make money, loads of it. Crisis- what crisis. For people with money, with assets, properties, stocks shares, pension funds- the money just rolls in. You don't even have to work that hard (or at all even) to accumulate- more and more and more. It just comes. And I'm not speaking here out of envy. So maybe higher taxes could work don't you think?
IFS -
''So in fact there is little additional evidence to suggest that a 50p rate would raise more than was estimated by HMRC back in 2012.''
''at the moment, the best evidence we have still suggests that raising the top rate of tax would raise little revenue and make, at best, a marginal contribution to reducing the budget deficit ''
http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/7066
Labour base their claims on projections before the event not facts
Someone on £26 000 post deduction income would have paid 20% on £15 000; so about £3000.
So the first would have paid roughly the tax of 130 average earnins taxpayers. Sounds as if we need to encourage high earners to me!
Why don't you answer my second point?
If the bedroom tax is so wicked why did Labour introduce it to the private rented sector?
Socialists are the most dimwitted hypocritical bunch of idiots known to man.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3005845/Exposed-Star-Tory-candidate-plotted-race-thugs-stage-fake-EDL-demo-cynical-bid-win-votes.html
A key Tory Election candidate was suspended last night after plotting with far-Right extremists to stir up racial hatred in a cynical bid to win votes.
..... and PB Tories kept quiet about this. Who are the fruitcakes now?
I think its the gift that keeps on giving.
To Labour as well as to Millionaires (who earn £1m pa)*
*In future referred to as millionaires!!!
It serves not to raise money, but to reallocate government subsidised housing (whether private sector or public sector) to those in most need of it. The principle is a fine one, and needed while there is a shortage of housing. I would have only applied the surcharge after the tennant had refused a reasonable offer of a nearby smaller property.
How many basic rate payers are there?
How many 45% payers are there?
See foxinsox post at 10.59
Good politics is often an oxymoron. I think you mean is it populist.