Interesting tweet from Mike on timing: Opinium finished their survey on Thursday, at peak Budget reporting time. Survation (and YouGov) finished today.
Lack of tick tock comments in the last two hours is striking :-)
Interesting tweet from Mike on timing: Opinium finished their survey on Thursday, at peak Budget reporting time. Survation (and YouGov) finished today.
Lack of tick tock comments in the last two hours is striking :-)
My tick has never been more tocked. One day nearer EICIPM IMO
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.
£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.
I am in favour of coalition policies, I am an LD party member, not a Tory. Indeed I was for 10 years a member of the Labour party in the New Labour years.
One effect of the 50% rate was my big earning surgical colleagues altering their private practice to being limited companies to avoid the band. They pay tax at 22% corporation tax rate now. Prior to the 50% rate it was more trouble than it was worth.
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!
Yes fox- we need to encourage high earners...to pay more tax. How many of them are sitting on assets, properties, pension funds, savings, etc...that are accumulating exponentially? You must be really stupid to be rich solely on your salary alone- yeh right, like living in renting accommodation and paying for everything on credit. They all have assets and lots of them. So an extra 5% on their annual salary is not going to hurt and is certainly not going to stop them working. I doubt many people on the street realise just how wealthy people have become at the top end for not really doing very much. How many GP partners work part time? Partnered solicitors? Partnered accountants? Consultants? Company directors? But they still manage to fill their subsidised pension pots. Times have changed where wealthier people have got wealthier for doing much less. So tax them more.
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?
Its mentioned further down. Its crass to deal with the EDL and get involved in pretend negotiations. Amin deserves the sack.
Interesting tweet from Mike on timing: Opinium finished their survey on Thursday, at peak Budget reporting time. Survation (and YouGov) finished today.
Lack of tick tock comments in the last two hours is striking :-)
My tick has never been more tocked. One day nearer EICIPM IMO
Do you think with all this tick ticking you could find the time to answer my points please?
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 am not "PB Tory", but if you look down thread there are loads of links to this story from "PB Tories".
Now you can calculate the cost of every £10.00 tax you knock off the bill for basic rate payers.
From that link, (thanks Verulamius).
26.6 million non-higher rate taxpayers (86.9% of all taxpayers), 3.72 million higher rate taxpayers (12.2%), and 273,000 additional rate taxpayers (0.9%).
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?
Good point other than the fact TSE,raised this some time ago. Apart from which isn't suspending people from your party seen by you as a good thing as it is a sign of strength and honesty? Or is that bollocks only true when applied to kipper loonies?
Interesting tweet from Mike on timing: Opinium finished their survey on Thursday, at peak Budget reporting time. Survation (and YouGov) finished today.
Opinium was same timing as Populus which had 3% Lab lead. So not sure timing is the issue - I think it's just random variation around an average Lab lead of 0.5% to 1%.
Re your earlier comment re your prospects of winning - I thought polls showed almost 50% of people hadn't yet finally decided how to vote. How does that reconcile to your comment re very few don't knows?
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?
Its mentioned further down. Its crass to deal with the EDL and get involved in pretend negotiations. Amin deserves the sack.
Looks like he also got caught admitting to assaulting two people.
Interesting tweet from Mike on timing: Opinium finished their survey on Thursday, at peak Budget reporting time. Survation (and YouGov) finished today.
Lack of tick tock comments in the last two hours is striking :-)
My tick has never been more tocked. One day nearer EICIPM IMO
Do you think with all this tick ticking you could find the time to answer my points please?
Or are you too chicken?
No way to answer your point 2 other than capitalist landlords are taking the piss at the taxpayers expense.
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!
Yes fox- we need to encourage high earners...to pay more tax. How many of them are sitting on assets, properties, pension funds, savings, etc...that are accumulating exponentially? You must be really stupid to be rich solely on your salary alone- yeh right, like living in renting accommodation and paying for everything on credit. They all have assets and lots of them. So an extra 5% on their annual salary is not going to hurt and is certainly not going to stop them working. I doubt many people on the street realise just how wealthy people have become at the top end for not really doing very much. How many GP partners work part time? Partnered solicitors? Partnered accountants? Consultants? Company directors? But they still manage to fill their subsidised pension pots. Times have changed where wealthier people have got wealthier for doing much less. So tax them more.
So the message is work, save, save for a property, save for a pension, get on in life, and we'll screw you? Great, fantastic incentive.
Interesting tweet from Mike on timing: Opinium finished their survey on Thursday, at peak Budget reporting time. Survation (and YouGov) finished today.
Lack of tick tock comments in the last two hours is striking :-)
My tick has never been more tocked. One day nearer EICIPM IMO
Do you think with all this tick ticking you could find the time to answer my points please?
Or are you too chicken?
No way to answer your point 2 other than capitalist landlords are taking the piss at the taxpayers expense.
Rent control required methinks
What about my point about Your darling Gordon and the 40% tax rate, is that too difficult for you to answer as well?
£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.
I am in favour of coalition policies, I am an LD party member, not a Tory. Indeed I was for 10 years a member of the Labour party in the New Labour years.
One effect of the 50% rate was my big earning surgical colleagues altering their private practice to being limited companies to avoid the band. They pay tax at 22% corporation tax rate now. Prior to the 50% rate it was more trouble than it was worth.
45% rate will have meant they all gave up their private companies of course.
Interesting tweet from Mike on timing: Opinium finished their survey on Thursday, at peak Budget reporting time. Survation (and YouGov) finished today.
Opinium was same timing as Populus which had 3% Lab lead. So not sure timing is the issue - I think it's just random variation around an average Lab lead of 0.5% to 1%.
Re your earlier comment re your prospects of winning - I thought polls showed almost 50% of people hadn't yet finally decided how to vote. How does that reconcile to your comment re very few don't knows?
I think alot of those undecided will just not turn out and the rest will just vote as they did last time. Probably a bit of a boost for the Lib Dems, they may yet see the sunlit uplands of 10% come the day.
Interesting tweet from Mike on timing: Opinium finished their survey on Thursday, at peak Budget reporting time. Survation (and YouGov) finished today.
Lack of tick tock comments in the last two hours is striking :-)
My tick has never been more tocked. One day nearer EICIPM IMO
Do you think with all this tick ticking you could find the time to answer my points please?
Or are you too chicken?
No way to answer your point 2 other than capitalist landlords are taking the piss at the taxpayers expense.
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?
Good point other than the fact TSE,raised this some time ago. Apart from which isn't suspending people from your party seen by you as a good thing as it is a sign of strength and honesty? Or is that bollocks only true when applied to kipper loonies?
Suspending is indeed good, whichever party is doing it. Unfortunately, whilst they have done it this time, the Tory record on getting rid of racist and homophobic councillors and candidates is not good.
Which is why my favourite example Councillor Ken Gregory pops up yet again.
Interesting tweet from Mike on timing: Opinium finished their survey on Thursday, at peak Budget reporting time. Survation (and YouGov) finished today.
Lack of tick tock comments in the last two hours is striking :-)
My tick has never been more tocked. One day nearer EICIPM IMO
Do you think with all this tick ticking you could find the time to answer my points please?
Or are you too chicken?
No way to answer your point 2 other than capitalist landlords are taking the piss at the taxpayers expense.
Rent control required methinks
Limit price and you restrict quality and or supply. See various goods in Venezuela for examples. At which point "speculators" are usually blamed.
Interesting tweet from Mike on timing: Opinium finished their survey on Thursday, at peak Budget reporting time. Survation (and YouGov) finished today.
Lack of tick tock comments in the last two hours is striking :-)
My tick has never been more tocked. One day nearer EICIPM IMO
Do you think with all this tick ticking you could find the time to answer my points please?
Or are you too chicken?
No way to answer your point 2 other than capitalist landlords are taking the piss at the taxpayers expense.
Rent control required methinks
More housing is a better solution.
Or no immigration, housing is not an option as we don't have the space or resources to sustain a larger population.
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.
You are probably getting 35-40% of the Lib Dem vote. The Tories will be getting 15-20% of them (with Soubry adjustments) only around 25% will stay loyal. The rest will fragment to UKIP, Greens, others, or not vote.
Assuming UKIP poll around 12% in Broxtowe and the composition of their votes in the rough order of 40% Tory, 15% Labour 15% LD and 30% NV
I'd have Soubry on 19,500-20,000 and Palmer on 22,000-22,500, LDs on around 2,000-2,500 and UKIP on around 6,000-6,500, others on around 1,500-2,000.
So I'd expect you to win by a majority of around 2,500 or 4-5% (not the 7% margin you claim)
I could give a 5% incumbency bonus to Soubry too (but haven't) which could be worth up to a 1,000 votes for her, so it could be as close as 1,500 votes in your favour, or 2-3%.
But otherwise you've worked the seat hard, and your groundworkers will aid you in getting your vote out, so I'd be reasonably confident of that result. Unless the national polls do move decisively against Labour in the next 6 weeks, in which case the result could be much close.
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?
Good point other than the fact TSE,raised this some time ago. Apart from which isn't suspending people from your party seen by you as a good thing as it is a sign of strength and honesty? Or is that bollocks only true when applied to kipper loonies?
Suspending is indeed good, whichever party is doing it. Unfortunately, whilst they have done it this time, the Tory record on getting rid of racist and homophobic councillors and candidates is not good.
Which is why my favourite example Councillor Ken Gregory pops up yet again.
Tory hypocrisy knows no bounds it seems.
Just given him a quick Google, everything seems to date back to 2012, what's he up to now?
Why is the UK government paying Scottish money to celebrate Agincourt? If it is so important to the nation involved then it should be the devolved English parliament that pays for it from it's own money.
If such a thing doesn't exist then it is as relevant as a celebration of the Phoenician conquest of the Mediterranean.
The subject of discussion was income tax, but obviously wealthier people spend their money on assets, which are themselves often taxed. They pay more in stamp duty, council tax, VAT and air passenger duty amongst many others.
To increase the tax take there are two possible approaches: increase the wealth of the population to be taxed or to tax the existing population at a higher rate. Which is the most effective? And where is the point of diminishing returns?
We know that tobacco taxes reduce smoking and alcohol taxes reduce drinking. Why is it so surprising to you that income taxes reduce the incentive to earn more? I think 50% is an important psychological tipping point where someone pays half their marginal earnings in tax. Do not be surprised that they manage their income to fall below the band.
(Actually the peak rate of tax is between £106 000 and £125 000 where the marginal rate reaches 62% due to clawback of personal allowances. I would rather these were restored and the top rate started lower so as to be fiscally neutral)
So the message is work, save, save for a property, save for a pension, get on in life, and we'll screw you? Great, fantastic incentive.
@WelshHowl- not quite. The message is that those people on average wages, average money, average property prices cannot begin to comprehend the lives of those with so much cash coming in and assets building up- pushing it into ISA's tax free pensions, tax free pots for children and relatives, buying buy to lets, many on part time jobs because they are so well off it is not worth working more, and still with more cash than they can squirrel away in tax free areas- people couldn't understand it. It is not a matter about incentives, it is a question of how Britain has changed in favour of the wealthy- and still we have a big bloody yahoo about putting up the top rate of tax by 5%.
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.
For some reason Dry Cider has become completely absent from the UK market (even Blackthorn stopped being dry some years ago). I find it hard to believe the entire population want's alcopops (which is what sweet cider is).
Aspall Premier Cru is magnificent but damn, 7% is a bit strong for an "all night" drink. The Draught isn't as dry but is still much better than most ciders on the market. Interestingly one of the best Dry Ciders around today is the Co-op Own Brand "Dry Cider" which is only £3 for 2l.
Has someone at YouGov leaked their poll to Mr Smithson? This is what is being suggested at UKPR. Is it ethical to repeat it or indeed accept such leaks?
Why is the UK government paying Scottish money to celebrate Agincourt? If it is so important to the nation involved then it should be the devolved English parliament that pays for it from it's own money.
If such a thing doesn't exist then it is as relevant as a celebration of the Phoenician conquest of the Mediterranean.
So the message is work, save, save for a property, save for a pension, get on in life, and we'll screw you? Great, fantastic incentive.
@WelshHowl- not quite. The message is that those people on average wages, average money, average property prices cannot begin to comprehend the lives of those with so much cash coming in and assets building up- pushing it into ISA's tax free pensions, tax free pots for children and relatives, buying buy to lets, many on part time jobs because they are so well off it is not worth working more, and still with more cash than they can squirrel away in tax free areas- people couldn't understand it. It is not a matter about incentives, it is a question of how Britain has changed in favour of the wealthy- and still we have a big bloody yahoo about putting up the top rate of tax by 5%.
So the message is work, save, save for a property, save for a pension, get on in life, and we'll screw you? Great, fantastic incentive.
@WelshHowl- not quite. The message is that those people on average wages, average money, average property prices cannot begin to comprehend the lives of those with so much cash coming in and assets building up- pushing it into ISA's tax free pensions, tax free pots for children and relatives, buying buy to lets, many on part time jobs because they are so well off it is not worth working more, and still with more cash than they can squirrel away in tax free areas- people couldn't understand it. It is not a matter about incentives, it is a question of how Britain has changed in favour of the wealthy- and still we have a big bloody yahoo about putting up the top rate of tax by 5%.
Yes. As Mr Laffer and his curve kicks in and it doesn't raise much money.
£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.
I am in favour of coalition policies, I am an LD party member, not a Tory. Indeed I was for 10 years a member of the Labour party in the New Labour years.
One effect of the 50% rate was my big earning surgical colleagues altering their private practice to being limited companies to avoid the band. They pay tax at 22% corporation tax rate now. Prior to the 50% rate it was more trouble than it was worth.
45% rate will have meant they all gave up their private companies of course.
No, I think that having set them up they will keep them even at lower rates. I think that the 50% rate probably did lasting harm to the revenue as a result.
Looking back two of my best bets are 3-1 on the Tories in Kingswood and 3-1 Ed Balls next Chancellor. I think I got those two on around the same time. Crackers.
Sadly there is no offer for Alex Salmond. It is extremely unlikely but unlike most of the high odds bets it is actually quite possible. If one of the bookies added him at the bottom odds of 200 that would actually be worth a couple of quid.
£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.
I am in favour of coalition policies, I am an LD party member, not a Tory. Indeed I was for 10 years a member of the Labour party in the New Labour years.
One effect of the 50% rate was my big earning surgical colleagues altering their private practice to being limited companies to avoid the band. They pay tax at 22% corporation tax rate now. Prior to the 50% rate it was more trouble than it was worth.
45% rate will have meant they all gave up their private companies of course.
No, I think that having set them up they will keep them even at lower rates. I think that the 50% rate probably did lasting harm to the revenue as a result.
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.
Hmm, when I first read about the 5 way I expected Miliband to withdraw after the first two offerings. This indicates he is boxing himself into being unable to do so. After Sturgeon spanks him on the 7 way he will not want to do the 5 way but now he's tied himself into it.
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.
For some reason Dry Cider has become completely absent from the UK market (even Blackthorn stopped being dry some years ago). I find it hard to believe the entire population want's alcopops (which is what sweet cider is).
Aspall Premier Cru is magnificent but damn, 7% is a bit strong for an "all night" drink. The Draught isn't as dry but is still much better than most ciders on the market. Interestingly one of the best Dry Ciders around today is the Co-op Own Brand "Dry Cider" which is only £3 for 2l.
I was going to post exactly that but thought I might come across as a proper alcy!
The Co-op cider is unbelievably good and incredible value.
Has someone at YouGov leaked their poll to Mr Smithson? This is what is being suggested at UKPR. Is it ethical to repeat it or indeed accept such leaks?
I provided Mike with the figures, they are from the Sunday Times website.
Why is the UK government paying Scottish money to celebrate Agincourt? If it is so important to the nation involved then it should be the devolved English parliament that pays for it from it's own money.
If such a thing doesn't exist then it is as relevant as a celebration of the Phoenician conquest of the Mediterranean.
What is Scottish money in a United Kingdom?
The Welsh archers should pay. At least Mr Dair does not receive an archer's salute...
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.
As i say politically stupid.
Taxation is NOT punishment.
If a tax increase does not generate more revenue the ONLY thing it is is punishment.
50p top rate does not increase tax take. Unless you want to punish success, the idea of a 50p rate is moronic.
Has someone at YouGov leaked their poll to Mr Smithson? This is what is being suggested at UKPR. Is it ethical to repeat it or indeed accept such leaks?
I provided Mike with the figures, they are from the Sunday Times website.
What are the figures then? As I look at it the Sunday Times is showing last weeks news.
Has someone at YouGov leaked their poll to Mr Smithson? This is what is being suggested at UKPR. Is it ethical to repeat it or indeed accept such leaks?
I provided Mike with the figures, they are from the Sunday Times website.
Has someone at YouGov leaked their poll to Mr Smithson? This is what is being suggested at UKPR. Is it ethical to repeat it or indeed accept such leaks?
I provided Mike with the figures, they are from the Sunday Times website.
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.
Very soon Labour will be changing their rules so a leader doesn't need to be an elected officer of the European, Westminster or National parliament after Creepy Jim loses his seat. Maybe Davie will take advantage.
@foxinsuk- ultimately, the argument is whether one views inequality as a good or bad thing. Lowering taxes increases inequality. I'd rather us being poorer and more equal than richer and seeing food banks. What major low tax country (not tax haven) tackles inequality? You're a Doctor right? Since when did Doctors get into the discourse of making limited companies, trust funds, exceeding pension fund liabilities? I want my GP to think about caring for me, not to think about making maxing his partnered salary until aged 45, then to work part time thereafter and retire after 50 because their pension fund is full. This is modern Britain. This is as much the fault of Labour as it is the Tories, infact probably more the fault of Labour who didn't appreciate how devious and money obsessed the BMA could be.
Has someone at YouGov leaked their poll to Mr Smithson? This is what is being suggested at UKPR. Is it ethical to repeat it or indeed accept such leaks?
I provided Mike with the figures, they are from the Sunday Times website.
Leaking through the paywall. Tut!
Lucky I didn't tell you hours ago which party was in front in the Yougov.....err
Has someone at YouGov leaked their poll to Mr Smithson? This is what is being suggested at UKPR. Is it ethical to repeat it or indeed accept such leaks?
I provided Mike with the figures, they are from the Sunday Times website.
Why is the UK government paying Scottish money to celebrate Agincourt? If it is so important to the nation involved then it should be the devolved English parliament that pays for it from it's own money.
If such a thing doesn't exist then it is as relevant as a celebration of the Phoenician conquest of the Mediterranean.
What is Scottish money in a United Kingdom?
The Welsh archers should pay. At least Mr Dair does not receive an archer's salute...
Has someone at YouGov leaked their poll to Mr Smithson? This is what is being suggested at UKPR. Is it ethical to repeat it or indeed accept such leaks?
I provided Mike with the figures, they are from the Sunday Times website.
Leaking through the paywall. Tut!
Used to be sooo funny, between 2011 and mid 2014 , the Sunday Times would put up an article around 10pm on a Saturday night, usually written by Anthony Wells, talking about the YouGov figures, I'd email the article to Mike.
Mike would tweet and/or write a thread on the figures and Anthony Wells could only publish the figures when Mike had posted them, as Anthony Wells couldn't unilaterally publish them on UKPR
Has someone at YouGov leaked their poll to Mr Smithson? This is what is being suggested at UKPR. Is it ethical to repeat it or indeed accept such leaks?
I provided Mike with the figures, they are from the Sunday Times website.
Why is the UK government paying Scottish money to celebrate Agincourt? If it is so important to the nation involved then it should be the devolved English parliament that pays for it from it's own money.
If such a thing doesn't exist then it is as relevant as a celebration of the Phoenician conquest of the Mediterranean.
What is Scottish money in a United Kingdom?
The Welsh archers should pay. At least Mr Dair does not receive an archer's salute...
@foxinsuk- ultimately, the argument is whether one views inequality as a good or bad thing. Lowering taxes increases inequality. I'd rather us being poorer and more equal than richer and seeing food banks. What major low tax country (not tax haven) tackles inequality? You're a Doctor right? Since when did Doctors get into the discourse of making limited companies, trust funds, exceeding pension fund liabilities? I want my GP to think about caring for me, not to think about making maxing his partnered salary until aged 45, then to work part time thereafter and retire after 50 because their pension fund is full. This is modern Britain. This is as much the fault of Labour as it is the Tories, infact probably more the fault of Labour who didn't appreciate how devious and money obsessed the BMA could be.
Inequality is not a bad thing, some inequality is essential for motivation, development and innovation to thrive. It feeds a human instinct.
However, the extremes at both ends are unwelcome. Poverty and suffering shouldn't be a part of our society and there are examples at the top end of gross overpayment or reward for what appears to be failure or for pretty 'normal' jobs.
Why is the UK government paying Scottish money to celebrate Agincourt? If it is so important to the nation involved then it should be the devolved English parliament that pays for it from it's own money.
If such a thing doesn't exist then it is as relevant as a celebration of the Phoenician conquest of the Mediterranean.
What is Scottish money in a United Kingdom?
The Welsh archers should pay. At least Mr Dair does not receive an archer's salute...
@foxinsuk- ultimately, the argument is whether one views inequality as a good or bad thing. Lowering taxes increases inequality. I'd rather us being poorer and more equal than richer and seeing food banks. What major low tax country (not tax haven) tackles inequality? You're a Doctor right? Since when did Doctors get into the discourse of making limited companies, trust funds, exceeding pension fund liabilities? I want my GP to think about caring for me, not to think about making maxing his partnered salary until aged 45, then to work part time thereafter and retire after 50 because their pension fund is full. This is modern Britain. This is as much the fault of Labour as it is the Tories, infact probably more the fault of Labour who didn't appreciate how devious and money obsessed the BMA could be.
Inequality is not a bad thing, some inequality is essential for motivation, development and innovation to thrive. It feeds a human instinct.
However, the extremes at both ends are unwelcome. Poverty and suffering shouldn't be a part of our society and there are examples at the top end of gross overpayment or reward for what appears to be failure or for pretty 'normal' jobs.
@foxinsuk- ultimately, the argument is whether one views inequality as a good or bad thing. Lowering taxes increases inequality. I'd rather us being poorer and more equal than richer and seeing food banks. What major low tax country (not tax haven) tackles inequality? You're a Doctor right? Since when did Doctors get into the discourse of making limited companies, trust funds, exceeding pension fund liabilities? I want my GP to think about caring for me, not to think about making maxing his partnered salary until aged 45, then to work part time thereafter and retire after 50 because their pension fund is full. This is modern Britain. This is as much the fault of Labour as it is the Tories, infact probably more the fault of Labour who didn't appreciate how devious and money obsessed the BMA could be.
Inequality is not a bad thing, some inequality is essential for motivation, development and innovation to thrive. It feeds a human instinct.
However, the extremes at both ends are unwelcome. Poverty and suffering shouldn't be a part of our society and there are examples at the top end of gross overpayment or reward for what appears to be failure or for pretty 'normal' jobs.
@foxinsuk- ultimately, the argument is whether one views inequality as a good or bad thing. Lowering taxes increases inequality. I'd rather us being poorer and more equal than richer and seeing food banks. What major low tax country (not tax haven) tackles inequality? You're a Doctor right? Since when did Doctors get into the discourse of making limited companies, trust funds, exceeding pension fund liabilities? I want my GP to think about caring for me, not to think about making maxing his partnered salary until aged 45, then to work part time thereafter and retire after 50 because their pension fund is full. This is modern Britain. This is as much the fault of Labour as it is the Tories, infact probably more the fault of Labour who didn't appreciate how devious and money obsessed the BMA could be.
Inequality is not a bad thing, some inequality is essential for motivation, development and innovation to thrive. It feeds a human instinct.
However, the extremes at both ends are unwelcome. Poverty and suffering shouldn't be a part of our society and there are examples at the top end of gross overpayment or reward for what appears to be failure or for pretty 'normal' jobs.
Mostly in the public sector
I can think of plenty in the private sector as well. One is mimicking the other, both end up in a similar mess.
Has someone at YouGov leaked their poll to Mr Smithson? This is what is being suggested at UKPR. Is it ethical to repeat it or indeed accept such leaks?
I provided Mike with the figures, they are from the Sunday Times website.
Leaking through the paywall. Tut!
Lucky I didn't tell you hours ago which party was in front in the Yougov.....err
@foxinsuk- ultimately, the argument is whether one views inequality as a good or bad thing. Lowering taxes increases inequality. I'd rather us being poorer and more equal than richer and seeing food banks. What major low tax country (not tax haven) tackles inequality? You're a Doctor right? Since when did Doctors get into the discourse of making limited companies, trust funds, exceeding pension fund liabilities? I want my GP to think about caring for me, not to think about making maxing his partnered salary until aged 45, then to work part time thereafter and retire after 50 because their pension fund is full. This is modern Britain. This is as much the fault of Labour as it is the Tories, infact probably more the fault of Labour who didn't appreciate how devious and money obsessed the BMA could be.
Inequality is not a bad thing, some inequality is essential for motivation, development and innovation to thrive. It feeds a human instinct.
However, the extremes at both ends are unwelcome. Poverty and suffering shouldn't be a part of our society and there are examples at the top end of gross overpayment or reward for what appears to be failure or for pretty 'normal' jobs.
Mostly in the public sector
I can think of plenty in the private sector as well. One is mimicking the other, both end up in a similar mess.
I can too, but at least they are answerable to shareholders.
The likes of Entwistle get a massive payoff and huge pension for being totally useless, don't get me started on the likes of Nicholson, Thacker and Shoesmith
Has someone at YouGov leaked their poll to Mr Smithson? This is what is being suggested at UKPR. Is it ethical to repeat it or indeed accept such leaks?
I provided Mike with the figures, they are from the Sunday Times website.
Leaking through the paywall. Tut!
Lucky I didn't tell you hours ago which party was in front in the Yougov.....err
Guesses! Or a yougov employee
You bloody capitalist pig. Always blaming the employee. Why not a boss?
@foxinsuk- ultimately, the argument is whether one views inequality as a good or bad thing. Lowering taxes increases inequality. I'd rather us being poorer and more equal than richer and seeing food banks. What major low tax country (not tax haven) tackles inequality? You're a Doctor right? Since when did Doctors get into the discourse of making limited companies, trust funds, exceeding pension fund liabilities? I want my GP to think about caring for me, not to think about making maxing his partnered salary until aged 45, then to work part time thereafter and retire after 50 because their pension fund is full. This is modern Britain. This is as much the fault of Labour as it is the Tories, infact probably more the fault of Labour who didn't appreciate how devious and money obsessed the BMA could be.
Inequality is not a bad thing, some inequality is essential for motivation, development and innovation to thrive. It feeds a human instinct.
However, the extremes at both ends are unwelcome. Poverty and suffering shouldn't be a part of our society and there are examples at the top end of gross overpayment or reward for what appears to be failure or for pretty 'normal' jobs.
Mostly in the public sector
I can think of plenty in the private sector as well. One is mimicking the other, both end up in a similar mess.
I can too, but at least they are answerable to shareholders.
The likes of Entwistle get a massive payoff and huge pension for being totally useless, don't get me started on the likes of Nicholson, Thacker and Shoesmith
A trend I would suggest that was started by the private sector and the public sector copied the behaviour.
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.
Hmm, when I first read about the 5 way I expected Miliband to withdraw after the first two offerings. This indicates he is boxing himself into being unable to do so. After Sturgeon spanks him on the 7 way he will not want to do the 5 way but now he's tied himself into it.
I think there are two reasons why Miliband agreed to the five way.
1) To make sure it wasn't a non event, so the first two weeks of April are dominated by debate coverage 2) It's realistically only between Miliband and Farage on who will win. A debate victory would be a good boost mid campaign.
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.
For some reason Dry Cider has become completely absent from the UK market (even Blackthorn stopped being dry some years ago). I find it hard to believe the entire population want's alcopops (which is what sweet cider is).
Aspall Premier Cru is magnificent but damn, 7% is a bit strong for an "all night" drink. The Draught isn't as dry but is still much better than most ciders on the market. Interestingly one of the best Dry Ciders around today is the Co-op Own Brand "Dry Cider" which is only £3 for 2l.
I was going to post exactly that but thought I might come across as a proper alcy!
The Co-op cider is unbelievably good and incredible value.
It's fantastic value. As an all evening drink it's not too strong and a proper Dry cider.
You're right about the perception, the idea is cheap cider is the new Special Brew. This seems a bit harsh but I probably felt the same way myself and never considered cheap cider till there was all that media buzz about Tesco selling it at £2 a bottle and I thought I'd try it - was actually quite good when I did (2009 I think) till they reformulated it as a Medium Sweet. The Co-op one remains very dry and very, very nice.
The polls are really starting to shape up for Labour, but we've seen this pattern before. Every time Labour seem to be stable and time is about to run out for the Tories they suddenly gain by just enough to appear about to take a commanding lead. And then just as they are on the cusp their momentum stops, and time begins ticking back in Labour's favour.
I semi-confidently predict a polling move to the Tories in the next week.
What the bloody hell is all this about? I think all will become apparent in tomorow's Sunday Times. Something to do with an alleged case of fraud. They better be sure of their facts as they are naming someone specifically and will leave themselves open to a lawsuit otherwise.
The polls are really starting to shape up for Labour, but we've seen this pattern before. Every time Labour seem to be stable and time is about to run out for the Tories they suddenly gain by just enough to appear about to take a commanding lead. And then just as they are on the cusp their momentum stops, and time begins ticking back in Labour's favour.
I semi-confidently predict a polling move to the Tories in the next week.
Or it could just be statistical noise around the fact that it is neck and neck and / or that there is a soft 3-4% that are swayed headline to headline.
@foxinsuk- ultimately, the argument is whether one views inequality as a good or bad thing. Lowering taxes increases inequality. I'd rather us being poorer and more equal than richer and seeing food banks. What major low tax country (not tax haven) tackles inequality? You're a Doctor right? Since when did Doctors get into the discourse of making limited companies, trust funds, exceeding pension fund liabilities? I want my GP to think about caring for me, not to think about making maxing his partnered salary until aged 45, then to work part time thereafter and retire after 50 because their pension fund is full. This is modern Britain. This is as much the fault of Labour as it is the Tories, infact probably more the fault of Labour who didn't appreciate how devious and money obsessed the BMA could be.
Switzerland is a low tax, low Inequality country.
The idea that income tax has ANYTHING to do with Inequality is nonsense. Inequality is caused by Nepotism/Cronyism, lack of appropriate Wealth Tax and lack of a strong Inheritance tax.
Basically Inequality is inevitable in the UK given how the country works.
MP_SE...it isn't on the front page of the Sunday Times. If it was such a mega story you would think it would, no?
Interestingly, The Times have ANOTHER story of dodgy Lib Dem donations, this time it involves Nick Clegg.
"NICK CLEGG has been dragged into a party funding scandal after telling a potential donor, who later gave £10,000, that gifts could be split over two years to ensure he remained anonymous."
I will make a prediction, it won't make top stories on the BBC news website, just like the BBC seemed to miss the fact that another Lib Dem has had to step down today, because of sting that is being broadcast this week.
The BBC will be too busy wetting themselves over the MoS story as it ticks all their boxes...Tories + EDL...
The polls are really starting to shape up for Labour, but we've seen this pattern before. Every time Labour seem to be stable and time is about to run out for the Tories they suddenly gain by just enough to appear about to take a commanding lead. And then just as they are on the cusp their momentum stops, and time begins ticking back in Labour's favour.
I semi-confidently predict a polling move to the Tories in the next week.
Or it could just be statistical noise around the fact that it is neck and neck and / or that there is a soft 3-4% that are swayed headline to headline.
Maybe, but didn't it feel like that when there was noise around a 2% lead, and a 3-4% lead, etc? Then just when the lead was large enough that there weren't enough days left it slipped.
I hope I'm wrong, it isn't a particularly statistical theory, but it does seem like Labour can't hold a lead for very long.
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.
Hmm, when I first read about the 5 way I expected Miliband to withdraw after the first two offerings. This indicates he is boxing himself into being unable to do so. After Sturgeon spanks him on the 7 way he will not want to do the 5 way but now he's tied himself into it.
I think there are two reasons why Miliband agreed to the five way.
1) To make sure it wasn't a non event, so the first two weeks of April are dominated by debate coverage 2) It's realistically only between Miliband and Farage on who will win. A debate victory would be a good boost mid campaign.
Sturgeon will destroy Miliband and she *might* destroy Farage but probably won't feel a need to. Seriously, the underestimation of Sturgeon is risible. Miliband will be on the verge of tears.
MP_SE...it isn't on the front page of the Sunday Times. If it was such a mega story you would think it would, no?
Interestingly, The Times have ANOTHER story of dodgy Lib Dem donations, this time it involves Nick Clegg.
I will make a prediction, it won't make top stories on the BBC news website, just like the BBC seemed to miss the fact that another Lib Dem has had to step down today, because of sting that is being broadcast this week.
The BBC will be too busy wetting themselves over the MoS story as it ticks all their boxes...Tories + EDL...
Yeah, the tweets come across as amateurish and kinda weird.
Certainly not short of scandals tomorrow across all political parties.
What the bloody hell is all this about? I think all will become apparent in tomorow's Sunday Times. Something to do with an alleged case of fraud. They better be sure of their facts as they are naming someone specifically and will leave themselves open to a lawsuit otherwise.
If he's already skipped the country to a non-extradition state then I'm not sure how careful they need to be.
As aside, Times has a story about Mo Farah's coach ordering some "super-supplement".
No suggestion this supplement is illegal, but I really hope Mo is clean and also that he is being super careful not to slip up.
Have to be honest I just don't trust athletes, at least one double Olympic gold Brit improved out of sight to win those races. I got to the stage where if they ran the 100 meters final in my garden I would close the curtains, I just hope that Usain Bolt is clean, he has done so much for athletics.
The polls are really starting to shape up for Labour, but we've seen this pattern before. Every time Labour seem to be stable and time is about to run out for the Tories they suddenly gain by just enough to appear about to take a commanding lead. And then just as they are on the cusp their momentum stops, and time begins ticking back in Labour's favour.
I semi-confidently predict a polling move to the Tories in the next week.
Or it could just be statistical noise around the fact that it is neck and neck and / or that there is a soft 3-4% that are swayed headline to headline.
Maybe, but didn't it feel like that when there was noise around a 2% lead, and a 3-4% lead, etc? Then just when the lead was large enough that there weren't enough days left it slipped.
I hope I'm wrong, it isn't a particularly statistical theory, but it does seem like Labour can't hold a lead for very long.
It does honestly feel like there are ~ 3% who switch their view around depending on who is on the Telly.
As aside, Times has a story about Mo Farah's coach ordering some "super-supplement".
No suggestion this supplement is illegal, but I really hope Mo is clean and also that he is being super careful not to slip up.
Have to be honest I just don't trust athletes, at least one double Olympic gold Brit improved out of sight to win those races. I got to the stage where if they ran the 100 meters final in my garden I would close the curtains, I just hope that Usain Bolt is clean, he has done so much for athletics.
I don't trust athletes either. I watched the German documentary (I don't know if there is an English translation) about the Russian setup and was was been done i.e 90%+ of athletes are being doped...and the fall out from it by the authorities, basically nothing.
I think everybody hopes that the Bolt is indeed some super human freak and clean, unlike basically the rest of the Jamaican sprint team who have been done for drugs even though it is well known that the drugs testing by the authorities in Jamaica is a joke.
All this talk about cider is making me thirsty, and it's damn hard to find a good cider in these parts.
There's a Co-op everywhere. Their own brand Dry really is fantastic.
I'll obviously second that, anyone who likes cider should forget any preconceived notions and give it a try.
It can be surprising what happens when you try some of the own brand products. Obviously the bulk of them are awful but sometimes you can save a fortune.
I used to drink a couple of 2l bottles of either Diet Coke or Diet Dr Pepper a day. A few years ago when I wasn't working I tried different drinks to save some cash, the mid price offerings were frankly awful but the bottom price drinks - the Tesco one (if you prefer the Kola taste) or the Sainsbury one (if you prefer the smoky caramel taste) are marvellous and only 20p a bottle instead of 5 to 10 times the price.
The Asda one is awful. It's like weakly flavoured water.
As aside, Times has a story about Mo Farah's coach ordering some "super-supplement".
No suggestion this supplement is illegal, but I really hope Mo is clean and also that he is being super careful not to slip up.
Have to be honest I just don't trust athletes, at least one double Olympic gold Brit improved out of sight to win those races. I got to the stage where if they ran the 100 meters final in my garden I would close the curtains, I just hope that Usain Bolt is clean, he has done so much for athletics.
As aside, Times has a story about Mo Farah's coach ordering some "super-supplement".
No suggestion this supplement is illegal, but I really hope Mo is clean and also that he is being super careful not to slip up.
Have to be honest I just don't trust athletes, at least one double Olympic gold Brit improved out of sight to win those races. I got to the stage where if they ran the 100 meters final in my garden I would close the curtains, I just hope that Usain Bolt is clean, he has done so much for athletics.
I don't trust athletes either. I watched the German documentary (I don't know if there is an English translation) about the Russian setup and was was been done i.e 90%+ of athletes are being doped...and the fall out from it by the authorities, basically nothing.
I think everybody hopes that the Bolt is indeed some super human freak and clean, unlike basically the rest of the Jamaican sprint team who have been done for drugs even though it is well known that the drugs testing by the authorities in Jamaica is a joke.
Bolt is an Indurain. His physicality is beyond anything drugs can give you (no cyclist can dope a 50% higher lung capacity just as no Sprinter can have West African origin for Twitch fibre, be 6'6 and that coordinated for sprinting.
Comments
One effect of the 50% rate was my big earning surgical colleagues altering their private practice to being limited companies to avoid the band. They pay tax at 22% corporation tax rate now. Prior to the 50% rate it was more trouble than it was worth.
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!
@foxinsoxuk
Yes fox- we need to encourage high earners...to pay more tax. How many of them are sitting on assets, properties, pension funds, savings, etc...that are accumulating exponentially? You must be really stupid to be rich solely on your salary alone- yeh right, like living in renting accommodation and paying for everything on credit. They all have assets and lots of them. So an extra 5% on their annual salary is not going to hurt and is certainly not going to stop them working.
I doubt many people on the street realise just how wealthy people have become at the top end for not really doing very much. How many GP partners work part time? Partnered solicitors? Partnered accountants? Consultants? Company directors? But they still manage to fill their subsidised pension pots.
Times have changed where wealthier people have got wealthier for doing much less. So tax them more.
Cameron ‘blocked Clegg from TV debate’
Sources say prime minister vetoed Lib Dem leader’s participation in third event because he did not want to be only absentee
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/21/cameron-blocked-clegg-tv-debate-general-election
Or are you too chicken?
@bigjohnowls
Now you can calculate the cost of every £10.00 tax you knock off the bill for basic rate payers.
From that link, (thanks Verulamius).
26.6 million non-higher rate taxpayers (86.9% of all taxpayers), 3.72 million
higher rate taxpayers (12.2%), and 273,000 additional rate taxpayers (0.9%).
Re your earlier comment re your prospects of winning - I thought polls showed almost 50% of people hadn't yet finally decided how to vote. How does that reconcile to your comment re very few don't knows?
Looks like he also got caught admitting to assaulting two people.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3005897/Fall-Princes-Windsor-Tutor-Tory-candidate-rose-posed-PM-Osborne-Welby-claimed-taught-Wills-Harry.html
Rent control required methinks
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!
@foxinsoxuk
Yes fox- we need to encourage high earners...to pay more tax. How many of them are sitting on assets, properties, pension funds, savings, etc...that are accumulating exponentially? You must be really stupid to be rich solely on your salary alone- yeh right, like living in renting accommodation and paying for everything on credit. They all have assets and lots of them. So an extra 5% on their annual salary is not going to hurt and is certainly not going to stop them working.
I doubt many people on the street realise just how wealthy people have become at the top end for not really doing very much. How many GP partners work part time? Partnered solicitors? Partnered accountants? Consultants? Company directors? But they still manage to fill their subsidised pension pots.
Times have changed where wealthier people have got wealthier for doing much less. So tax them more.
So the message is work, save, save for a property, save for a pension, get on in life, and we'll screw you? Great, fantastic incentive.
Which is why my favourite example Councillor Ken Gregory pops up yet again.
Tory hypocrisy knows no bounds it seems.
Assuming UKIP poll around 12% in Broxtowe and the composition of their votes in the rough order of 40% Tory, 15% Labour 15% LD and 30% NV
I'd have Soubry on 19,500-20,000 and Palmer on 22,000-22,500, LDs on around 2,000-2,500 and UKIP on around 6,000-6,500, others on around 1,500-2,000.
So I'd expect you to win by a majority of around 2,500 or 4-5% (not the 7% margin you claim)
I could give a 5% incumbency bonus to Soubry too (but haven't) which could be worth up to a 1,000 votes for her, so it could be as close as 1,500 votes in your favour, or 2-3%.
But otherwise you've worked the seat hard, and your groundworkers will aid you in getting your vote out, so I'd be reasonably confident of that result. Unless the national polls do move decisively against Labour in the next 6 weeks, in which case the result could be much close.
If such a thing doesn't exist then it is as relevant as a celebration of the Phoenician conquest of the Mediterranean.
The subject of discussion was income tax, but obviously wealthier people spend their money on assets, which are themselves often taxed. They pay more in stamp duty, council tax, VAT and air passenger duty amongst many others.
To increase the tax take there are two possible approaches: increase the wealth of the population to be taxed or to tax the existing population at a higher rate. Which is the most effective? And where is the point of diminishing returns?
We know that tobacco taxes reduce smoking and alcohol taxes reduce drinking. Why is it so surprising to you that income taxes reduce the incentive to earn more? I think 50% is an important psychological tipping point where someone pays half their marginal earnings in tax. Do not be surprised that they manage their income to fall below the band.
(Actually the peak rate of tax is between £106 000 and £125 000 where the marginal rate reaches 62% due to clawback of personal allowances. I would rather these were restored and the top rate started lower so as to be fiscally neutral)
So the message is work, save, save for a property, save for a pension, get on in life, and we'll screw you? Great, fantastic incentive.
@WelshHowl- not quite. The message is that those people on average wages, average money, average property prices cannot begin to comprehend the lives of those with so much cash coming in and assets building up- pushing it into ISA's tax free pensions, tax free pots for children and relatives, buying buy to lets, many on part time jobs because they are so well off it is not worth working more, and still with more cash than they can squirrel away in tax free areas- people couldn't understand it.
It is not a matter about incentives, it is a question of how Britain has changed in favour of the wealthy- and still we have a big bloody yahoo about putting up the top rate of tax by 5%.
@montie: @SayeedaWarsi happy to believe someone else recruited him as my only evidence for believing he was recruited by u was that u told me u had
Also liking Aspells cider, not convinced it likes me though.
For some reason Dry Cider has become completely absent from the UK market (even Blackthorn stopped being dry some years ago). I find it hard to believe the entire population want's alcopops (which is what sweet cider is).
Aspall Premier Cru is magnificent but damn, 7% is a bit strong for an "all night" drink. The Draught isn't as dry but is still much better than most ciders on the market. Interestingly one of the best Dry Ciders around today is the Co-op Own Brand "Dry Cider" which is only £3 for 2l.
(Like the pun mind on my avatar name - fair do's)
Aspall Premier Cru is magnificent but damn, 7% is a bit strong for an "all night" drink. The Draught isn't as dry but is still much better than most ciders on the market. Interestingly one of the best Dry Ciders around today is the Co-op Own Brand "Dry Cider" which is only £3 for 2l.
I was going to post exactly that but thought I might come across as a proper alcy!
The Co-op cider is unbelievably good and incredible value.
Long links make the site unreadable on mobile devices.
If a tax increase does not generate more revenue the ONLY thing it is is punishment.
50p top rate does not increase tax take. Unless you want to punish success, the idea of a 50p rate is moronic.
You're a Doctor right? Since when did Doctors get into the discourse of making limited companies, trust funds, exceeding pension fund liabilities? I want my GP to think about caring for me, not to think about making maxing his partnered salary until aged 45, then to work part time thereafter and retire after 50 because their pension fund is full. This is modern Britain.
This is as much the fault of Labour as it is the Tories, infact probably more the fault of Labour who didn't appreciate how devious and money obsessed the BMA could be.
Mike would tweet and/or write a thread on the figures and Anthony Wells could only publish the figures when Mike had posted them, as Anthony Wells couldn't unilaterally publish them on UKPR
However, the extremes at both ends are unwelcome. Poverty and suffering shouldn't be a part of our society and there are examples at the top end of gross overpayment or reward for what appears to be failure or for pretty 'normal' jobs.
The likes of Entwistle get a massive payoff and huge pension for being totally useless, don't get me started on the likes of Nicholson, Thacker and Shoesmith
Hope you have a sense of humour!
What the bloody hell is all this about?
1) To make sure it wasn't a non event, so the first two weeks of April are dominated by debate coverage
2) It's realistically only between Miliband and Farage on who will win. A debate victory would be a good boost mid campaign.
You're right about the perception, the idea is cheap cider is the new Special Brew. This seems a bit harsh but I probably felt the same way myself and never considered cheap cider till there was all that media buzz about Tesco selling it at £2 a bottle and I thought I'd try it - was actually quite good when I did (2009 I think) till they reformulated it as a Medium Sweet. The Co-op one remains very dry and very, very nice.
I semi-confidently predict a polling move to the Tories in the next week.
What the bloody hell is all this about?
I think all will become apparent in tomorow's Sunday Times. Something to do with an alleged case of fraud. They better be sure of their facts as they are naming someone specifically and will leave themselves open to a lawsuit otherwise.
The idea that income tax has ANYTHING to do with Inequality is nonsense. Inequality is caused by Nepotism/Cronyism, lack of appropriate Wealth Tax and lack of a strong Inheritance tax.
Basically Inequality is inevitable in the UK given how the country works.
Interestingly, The Times have ANOTHER story of dodgy Lib Dem donations, this time it involves Nick Clegg.
"NICK CLEGG has been dragged into a party funding scandal after telling a potential donor, who later gave £10,000, that gifts could be split over two years to ensure he remained anonymous."
I will make a prediction, it won't make top stories on the BBC news website, just like the BBC seemed to miss the fact that another Lib Dem has had to step down today, because of sting that is being broadcast this week.
The BBC will be too busy wetting themselves over the MoS story as it ticks all their boxes...Tories + EDL...
No suggestion this supplement is illegal, but I really hope Mo is clean and also that he is being super careful not to slip up.
I hope I'm wrong, it isn't a particularly statistical theory, but it does seem like Labour can't hold a lead for very long.
Maybe he's going for the sympathy vote.
Certainly not short of scandals tomorrow across all political parties.
What the bloody hell is all this about?
I think all will become apparent in tomorow's Sunday Times. Something to do with an alleged case of fraud. They better be sure of their facts as they are naming someone specifically and will leave themselves open to a lawsuit otherwise.
If he's already skipped the country to a non-extradition state then I'm not sure how careful they need to be.
I think everybody hopes that the Bolt is indeed some super human freak and clean, unlike basically the rest of the Jamaican sprint team who have been done for drugs even though it is well known that the drugs testing by the authorities in Jamaica is a joke.
I used to drink a couple of 2l bottles of either Diet Coke or Diet Dr Pepper a day. A few years ago when I wasn't working I tried different drinks to save some cash, the mid price offerings were frankly awful but the bottom price drinks - the Tesco one (if you prefer the Kola taste) or the Sainsbury one (if you prefer the smoky caramel taste) are marvellous and only 20p a bottle instead of 5 to 10 times the price.
The Asda one is awful. It's like weakly flavoured water.
I fully expect him to open and close with a carefully prepared attack on Cameron for not taking part.
I suspect he regards the benefit of doing that far exceeds any downside from everything else that may happen in the debate.