"The Martin Freeman ad was great. He is at least as successful as the 100, if not more so. "
I agree. It at least gives Labour supporters the confidence that their advertisers and researchers are up to the task.
Except he turns out to be another hypocrite, with a child at private school, £6500 maps on his wall, and no problems with private healthcare.
I wonder if he's on PAYE like the little people?
Why do things listed make Freeman a hypocrite? Has he come out and demanded abolition of them?
No? So he isn't a hpocrite. Rightwing hate is so ugly.
When the leader of the party he is advertising for says that private healthcare is unnecessary then it is hypocritical.
Why?
Dancing on the head of a pin again SO? Of course it is hypocritical. Just like his £120k tax avoidance.
No, it's not hypocritical. You want it to be. But that is not the same thing. And Freeman has not had any tax issues, has he?
Getting his wife to declare bankruptcy is avoidance. Legal, and I would have done it in his place, but still he is advocating for a party that just made a massive fuss over tax avoidance. I am not.
Having private healthcare and advocating for the party of nationalisation and public services is hypocritical. He doesn't use the services like normal people, how can he know what the NHS is like? How can he advocate for the party that may increase taxes on normal people to pay for an NHS he doesn't use? Or education systems his kids won't use. It is very hypocritical and you Labourites trying to defend it know Labour has made an error in using frontman, but there is no other way of hiding Ed away
.
He is not married, but if you mean his partner - what evidence do you have that he had anything to do with her decision? One which she quickly realised was a mistake and which she has now corrected by paying back all those affected. And what evidence do you have that he does not use the NHS or, for that matter, that his kids will not use the state education system?
Of course, you would love Freeman to be a hypocrite. But you may want to learn what the word actually means. Right now, you are throwing around baseless (and libellous) accusations and making yourself look ever so slightly silly.
Is there a page where someone has connected UKIP's vote share with their predicted number of seats? E.g. 10% ~ 5 seats, 15% ~ 20 seats, or whatever it is. I'm wondering at what % the graph starts going up steeper. Second derivative in other words.
In 1974 the Liberals went from 6 seats to 14, so not yet on the steep part of the curve. They got 19.3%. I think that the consensus then was that they would need to be in the mid to high twenties to really start winning many seats. Also the Liberals were a well established party and had their support concentrated in certain areas, the 'celtic fringe'.
Is there a page where someone has connected UKIP's vote share with their predicted number of seats? E.g. 10% ~ 5 seats, 15% ~ 20 seats, or whatever it is. I'm wondering at what % the graph starts going up steeper. Second derivative in other words.
I think the consensus on here is 5-20% 1-2 seats
If I had to pick a number right now I'd still go for three.
"The Martin Freeman ad was great. He is at least as successful as the 100, if not more so. "
I agree. It at least gives Labour supporters the confidence that their advertisers and researchers are up to the task.
Except he turns out to be another hypocrite, with a child at private school, £6500 maps on his wall, and no problems with private healthcare.
I wonder if he's on PAYE like the little people?
Why do things listed make Freeman a hypocrite? Has he come out and demanded abolition of them?
No? So he isn't a hpocrite. Rightwing hate is so ugly.
When the leader of the party he is advertising for says that private healthcare is unnecessary then it is hypocritical.
Why?
Dancing on the head of a pin again SO? Of course it is hypocritical. Just like his £120k tax avoidance.
No, it's not hypocritical. You want it to be. But that is not the same thing. And Freeman has not had any tax issues, has he?
Getting his wife to declare bankruptcy is avoidance. Legal, and I would have done it in his place, but still he is advocating for a party that just made a massive fuss over tax avoidance. I am not.
Having private healthcare and advocating for the party of nationalisation and public services is hypocritical. He doesn't use the services like normal people, how can he know what the NHS is like? How can he advocate for the party that may increase taxes on normal people to pay for an NHS he doesn't use? Or education systems his kids won't use. It is very hypocritical and you Labourites trying to defend it know Labour has made an error in using frontman, but there is no other way of hiding Ed away.
Ignoring the obvious libel in line 1, Labour is actually advocating tax increases on people like him.
He pretty much says so in the ad. You're projecting your jaundiced rightwing view of the human character where it isn't justified.
Call me old fashioned but like Ed, the fact that he is quite happy to spawn offspring but not up to getting married which would provide security and certainty for the family says a lot about the chap.
Is there a page where someone has connected UKIP's vote share with their predicted number of seats? E.g. 10% ~ 5 seats, 15% ~ 20 seats, or whatever it is. I'm wondering at what % the graph starts going up steeper. Second derivative in other words.
I think the consensus on here is 5-20% 1-2 seats
If I had to pick a number right now I'd still go for three.
The single most likely outcome looks like 1 to me. But that's not the same thing as the O/U line or the spread.
Is there a page where someone has connected UKIP's vote share with their predicted number of seats? E.g. 10% ~ 5 seats, 15% ~ 20 seats, or whatever it is. I'm wondering at what % the graph starts going up steeper. Second derivative in other words.
The problem is it depends on the state of the other parties. If the LibDems stay marooned in the single digits, and the green surge abates, then UKIP doesn't really start picking up lots of seats until the early 20s (perhaps 22/23%) when they start picking up 5 per percent or so, rising to 10 per percent in the late 20s.
However, if the LibDems recover to the low teens and the Greens stay at 5%, then UKIP can start picking up quite a lot of seats in the high teens.
Longer term, the question is whether UKIP will attract or repel tactical voters. In France, the Front National has done a terrible job of getting tactical votes. Out of 577 members of the French National Assembly, just two are from the FN.
Those kinds of ads are a game for any number of players. I hope Labour don't follow the Tories by doing the same even if their agency does it better (which I'm sure they would). It's a zero sum game
"The Martin Freeman ad was great. He is at least as successful as the 100, if not more so. "
I agree. It at least gives Labour supporters the confidence that their advertisers and researchers are up to the task.
Except he turns out to be another hypocrite, with a child at private school, £6500 maps on his wall, and no problems with private healthcare.
I wonder if he's on PAYE like the little people?
The power of the Freeman ad is evident when the right try so very, very hard to discredit it.
Not sure where the idea he is a hypocrite comes from. Is it Labour policy to stop people sending their children to private school, owning maps or using private healthcare?
Yes. Wherever possible without direct banning.
Nope, you are just making that up.
It's a fair opinion based on their attitude and policies.
It's an opinion, I guess.
What policies does Labour espouse that lead you to think it wants to ban the ownership of maps?
By increasing tax on the middle classes - how will they afford £6,500 maps? Only the super-rich luvvies will be allowed to purchase them.
(Can't see the point of spending £6,500 on a map myself, but maybe it's seen as an investment).
What tax rises are Labour going to impose on the middle classes?
Is there a page where someone has connected UKIP's vote share with their predicted number of seats? E.g. 10% ~ 5 seats, 15% ~ 20 seats, or whatever it is. I'm wondering at what % the graph starts going up steeper. Second derivative in other words.
I think the consensus on here is 5-20% 1-2 seats
If I had to pick a number right now I'd still go for three.
Personally I would say that anywhere in the 7%-12% range and they should pick up 3 seats. 12%-17% they should get another 3-5 or so - and then it starts going up more sharply at the high teens onwards (although this is dependent on what the other parties are doing of course.)
LMAO. Go to the many young people (and their parents) who are stuck in ZHCs and try telling them they're imagining it and there's some tractor stats to prove it.
Is there a page where someone has connected UKIP's vote share with their predicted number of seats? E.g. 10% ~ 5 seats, 15% ~ 20 seats, or whatever it is. I'm wondering at what % the graph starts going up steeper. Second derivative in other words.
I think the consensus on here is 5-20% 1-2 seats
If I had to pick a number right now I'd still go for three.
The single most likely outcome looks like 1 to me. But that's not the same thing as the O/U line or the spread.
I'm not selling UKIP on the spreads for good reason either.
Definitely one to avoid unless you have a particularly big risk appetite imo.
@janemerrick23: "man up" klaxon MT @peterdominiczak Danny Alexander claims Ed Balls refusing a three-way debate with him and Osborne."He should man up."
@janemerrick23: "man up" klaxon MT @peterdominiczak Danny Alexander claims Ed Balls refusing a three-way debate with him and Osborne."He should man up."
Even when the Lib Dems are apparently averaging 2% in 40 Labour seats in Scotland (down over 7/8ths) it is a little hard to match these polling results with the Lib Dem national scores.
It does occur to me that as the Lib Dem vote gets patchier it must be more vulnerable to being underrated or even possibly overrated in national polling. As there is a lot more wasteland than pasture the odds probably favour an understatement.
These polls suggest some success in circling the waggons and holding onto the votes where most needed. Are there enough waggons for their national score to turn out higher than feared or are the wastelands too great?
More importantly, are there enough mixed metaphors in this post?
But by you logic, when there is an overstatement it will, on average, but bigger than the average understatement.
What policies does Labour espouse that lead you to think it wants to ban the ownership of maps?
Judging by the make-it-up-as-we-go approach to ZHC, I think it would be wise to wait till the end of the day before answering this question.
Surely it would be possible to devise a Google Maps tax policy, thus covering all bases of being anti-predator-business and anti-tax avoidance and anti-maps, without actually effecting a ban?
"Call me old fashioned but like Ed, the fact that he is quite happy to spawn offspring but not up to getting married which would provide security and certainty for the family says a lot about the chap"
Not like a Tory to be judgemental about people's lifestyles. I bet you don't like poofter's either?
Is there a page where someone has connected UKIP's vote share with their predicted number of seats? E.g. 10% ~ 5 seats, 15% ~ 20 seats, or whatever it is. I'm wondering at what % the graph starts going up steeper. Second derivative in other words.
I think the consensus on here is 5-20% 1-2 seats
If I had to pick a number right now I'd still go for three.
Personally I would say that anywhere in the 7%-12% range and they should pick up 3 seats. 12%-17% they should get another 3-5 or so - and then it starts going up more sharply at the high teens onwards (although this is dependent on what the other parties are doing of course.)
The great irony is that UKIP should be praying for a LibDem resurgence. The two fish in different pools for their voters, and anything which lowers the aggregate Conservative/Labour vote shares is good for UKIP.
@janemerrick23: "man up" klaxon MT @peterdominiczak Danny Alexander claims Ed Balls refusing a three-way debate with him and Osborne."He should man up."
Why debate with someone who is not going to be an MP in a few weeks time?
"Call me old fashioned but like Ed, the fact that he is quite happy to spawn offspring but not up to getting married which would provide security and certainty for the family says a lot about the chap"
Not like a Tory to be judgemental about people's lifestyles. I bet you don't like poofter's either?
A bit of a leap Roger - on the contrary Cameron legalising same sex marriage has been a long overdue move - why didn't it happen under Labour ?
When the leader of the party he is advertising for says that private healthcare is unnecessary then it is hypocritical.
Why?
Dancing on the head of a pin again SO? Of course it is hypocritical. Just like his £120k tax avoidance.
No, it's not hypocritical. You want it to be. But that is not the same thing. And Freeman has not had any tax issues, has he?
Getting his wife to declare bankruptcy is avoidance. Legal, and I would have done it in his place, but still he is advocating for a party that just made a massive fuss over tax avoidance. I am not.
Having private healthcare and advocating for the party of nationalisation and public services is hypocritical. He doesn't use the services like normal people, how can he know what the NHS is like? How can he advocate for the party that may increase taxes on normal people to pay for an NHS he doesn't use? Or education systems his kids won't use. It is very hypocritical and you Labourites trying to defend it know Labour has made an error in using frontman, but there is no other way of hiding Ed away
.
He is not married, but if you mean his partner - what evidence do you have that he had anything to do with her decision? One which she quickly realised was a mistake and which she has now corrected by paying back all those affected. And what evidence do you have that he does not use the NHS or, for that matter, that his kids will not use the state education system?
Of course, you would love Freeman to be a hypocrite. But you may want to learn what the word actually means. Right now, you are throwing around baseless (and libellous) accusations and making yourself look ever so slightly silly.
SO: I haven't seen the ad and don't care one way or the other. But I thought it had been established that Freeman sent his son to a £12K p.a. private school in Potter's Bar, which might be some evidence that his children are not using state education. I don't know whether he's said anything about it and, frankly, actors' views on politics are no more interesting than anyone else's. In the past, for what it's worth, Freeman has said he has voted for Arthur Scargill's Socialist Party.
On the whole I tend to think that parties are best not getting celebrity endorsements. They tend not to mean much and the risk of being tarred with whatever skeleton the celebrity has in their cupboard probably outweighs any advantages.
AAAH there you are Mr Palmer, unless you are clucking like a wet hen. what about this bet that you offered me and that I revised with winner donations to respective charities.
Missed your reply, sorry. I proposed a £20 bet on Broxtowe. Did you say yes but proposed that the winner specifies a charity rather than pockets the money? That'd be fine with me. In other words, if Labour wins Broxtowe, you donate £20 to the charity of my choice, and if sopmeone else does, then I donate £20 to one specified by you? Personal details to be registered with Peter the Punter (who will not pass yours on), to avoid the disappearance issue that I've had with one or two other posters. OK?
@janemerrick23: "man up" klaxon MT @peterdominiczak Danny Alexander claims Ed Balls refusing a three-way debate with him and Osborne."He should man up."
Why debate with someone who is not going to be an MP in a few weeks time?
You really are souring on Labour if you think they are going to lose Morley & Outwood.
"The Martin Freeman ad was great. He is at least as successful as the 100, if not more so. "
I agree. It at least gives Labour supporters the confidence that their advertisers and researchers are up to the task.
Except he turns out to be another hypocrite, with a child at private school, £6500 maps on his wall, and no problems with private healthcare.
I wonder if he's on PAYE like the little people?
The power of the Freeman ad is evident when the right try so very, very hard to discredit it.
Not sure where the idea he is a hypocrite comes from. Is it Labour policy to stop people sending their children to private school, owning maps or using private healthcare?
Yes. Wherever possible without direct banning.
Nope, you are just making that up.
It's a fair opinion based on their attitude and policies.
It's an opinion, I guess.
What policies does Labour espouse that lead you to think it wants to ban the ownership of maps?
By increasing tax on the middle classes - how will they afford £6,500 maps? Only the super-rich luvvies will be allowed to purchase them.
(Can't see the point of spending £6,500 on a map myself, but maybe it's seen as an investment).
What tax rises are Labour going to impose on the middle classes?
Ed Balls has said, at least according to today's Evening Standard, that he can't promise people currntly not paying the 40% tax rate won't be dragged into it by him not raising thresholds. That is an effective tax increase.
"The Martin Freeman ad was great. He is at least as successful as the 100, if not more so. "
I agree. It at least gives Labour supporters the confidence that their advertisers and researchers are up to the task.
Except he turns out to be another hypocrite, with a child at private school, £6500 maps on his wall, and no problems with private healthcare.
I wonder if he's on PAYE like the little people?
The power of the Freeman ad is evident when the right try so very, very hard to discredit it.
Not sure where the idea he is a hypocrite comes from. Is it Labour policy to stop people sending their children to private school, owning maps or using private healthcare?
Yes. Wherever possible without direct banning.
Nope, you are just making that up.
It's a fair opinion based on their attitude and policies.
It's an opinion, I guess.
What policies does Labour espouse that lead you to think it wants to ban the ownership of maps?
By increasing tax on the middle classes - how will they afford £6,500 maps? Only the super-rich luvvies will be allowed to purchase them.
(Can't see the point of spending £6,500 on a map myself, but maybe it's seen as an investment).
What tax rises are Labour going to impose on the middle classes?
Ed Balls has said, at least according to today's Evening Standard, that he can't promise people currntly not paying the 40% tax rate won't be dragged into it by him not raising thresholds. That is an effective tax increase.
It's happened most years under the Tories, hasn't it?
"Call me old fashioned but like Ed, the fact that he is quite happy to spawn offspring but not up to getting married which would provide security and certainty for the family says a lot about the chap"
Not like a Tory to be judgemental about people's lifestyles. I bet you don't like poofter's either?
A bit of a leap Roger - on the contrary Cameron legalising same sex marriage has been a long overdue move - why didn't it happen under Labour ?
It happened thanks to Labour. A majority of Conservative MPs voted against.
Blimey! Did the BBC sell them rights for this or did the Tories borrow them. Either way I expect someone is in trouble.
If the Tories have lifted these without permission I look forward to the condemnation of all those who lambasted labour over its recent FT ad. If the BBC did give permission, then we can put all the bias stories to bed once and for all.
Very doubtful that they could refuse the use of previously broadcast news items.
"The Martin Freeman ad was great. He is at least as successful as the 100, if not more so. "
I agree. It at least gives Labour supporters the confidence that their advertisers and researchers are up to the task.
Except he turns out to be another hypocrite, with a child at private school, £6500 maps on his wall, and no problems with private healthcare.
I wonder if he's on PAYE like the little people?
The power of the Freeman ad is evident when the right try so very, very hard to discredit it.
Not sure where the idea he is a hypocrite comes from. Is it Labour policy to stop people sending their children to private school, owning maps or using private healthcare?
Yes. Wherever possible without direct banning.
Nope, you are just making that up.
It's a fair opinion based on their attitude and policies.
It's an opinion, I guess.
What policies does Labour espouse that lead you to think it wants to ban the ownership of maps?
By increasing tax on the middle classes - how will they afford £6,500 maps? Only the super-rich luvvies will be allowed to purchase them.
(Can't see the point of spending £6,500 on a map myself, but maybe it's seen as an investment).
What tax rises are Labour going to impose on the middle classes?
Perhaps you could let us know - Balls is being deliberately vague about the specific taxes.
AAAH there you are Mr Palmer, unless you are clucking like a wet hen. what about this bet that you offered me and that I revised with winner donations to respective charities.
Missed your reply, sorry. I proposed a £20 bet on Broxtowe. Did you say yes but proposed that the winner specifies a charity rather than pockets the money? That'd be fine with me. In other words, if Labour wins Broxtowe, you donate £20 to the charity of my choice, and if sopmeone else does, then I donate £20 to one specified by you? Personal details to be registered with Peter the Punter (who will not pass yours on), to avoid the disappearance issue that I've had with one or two other posters. OK?
I can vouch for Square Root. He's not a particularly strong Labour man
@Cyclefree - My guess is that using someone like Freeman will mean a lot more views of the broadcast, something that Labour wants presumably. It's more of an issue for the celebrity, I'd have thought: whether he minds having his private life all over the newspapers as a result of doing it. But most of the Freeman "dirt" was already in the public domain, so water of a duck's back.
Blimey! Did the BBC sell them rights for this or did the Tories borrow them. Either way I expect someone is in trouble.
If the Tories have lifted these without permission I look forward to the condemnation of all those who lambasted labour over its recent FT ad. If the BBC did give permission, then we can put all the bias stories to bed once and for all.
Very doubtful that they could refuse the use of previously broadcast news items.
The Labour Party had to withdraw its most recent video (in Scotland only perhaps?) when STV complained, apparently.
Is there a page where someone has connected UKIP's vote share with their predicted number of seats? E.g. 10% ~ 5 seats, 15% ~ 20 seats, or whatever it is. I'm wondering at what % the graph starts going up steeper. Second derivative in other words.
I think the consensus on here is 5-20% 1-2 seats
If I had to pick a number right now I'd still go for three.
Personally I would say that anywhere in the 7%-12% range and they should pick up 3 seats. 12%-17% they should get another 3-5 or so - and then it starts going up more sharply at the high teens onwards (although this is dependent on what the other parties are doing of course.)
The great irony is that UKIP should be praying for a LibDem resurgence. The two fish in different pools for their voters, and anything which lowers the aggregate Conservative/Labour vote shares is good for UKIP.
Indeed. Also (albeit to a lesser extent) - a #GreenSurge is good for UKIP under the same logic.
Motion 512: Dear White Gay Men: Stop Appropriating Black Women Submitted by: NUS LGBT Committee Speech for: NUS LGBT Committee Speech against: Free Summation: NUS LGBT Committee
Conference Believes: 1. The appropriation of Black women by white gay men is prevalent within the LGBT scene and community. 2. This may be manifested in the emulation of the mannerisms, language (particularly AAVE - African American Vernacular English) and phrases that can be attributed to Black women. White gay men may often assert that they are “strong black women” or have an “inner black woman”. 3. White gay men are the dominant demographic within the LGBT community, and they benefit from both white privilege and male privilege. 4. The appropriation of Black women by white gay men has been written about extensively. This quote is taken from Sierra Mannie’s TIME piece entitled: “Dear white gays, stop stealing Black Female culture":
“You are not a black woman, and you do not get to claim either blackness or womanhood. There is a clear line between appreciation and appropriation. I need some of you to cut it the hell out. Maybe, for some of you, it’s a presumed mutual appreciation for Beyoncé and weaves that has you thinking that I’m going to be amused by you approaching me in your best “Shanequa from around the way” voice. I don’t know. What I do know is that I don’t care how well you can quote Madea, who told you that your booty was getting bigger than hers, how cute you think it is to call yourself a strong black woman, who taught you to twerk, how funny you think it is to call yourself Quita or Keisha or for which black male you’ve been bottoming — you are not a black woman, and you do not get to claim either blackness or womanhood. It is not yours. It is not for you.”
Conference Further Believes: 1. This type of appropriation is unacceptable and must be addressed. 2. Low numbers of Black LGBT women delegates attend NUS LGBT conference. This can be attributed to many factors, one of which may be the prevalent appropriation by white gay men, which may mean that delegates do not feel comfortable or safe attending conference.
Conference Resolves: 1. To work to eradicate the appropriation of black women by white gay men. 2. To work in conjunction with NUS LGBT campaign to raise awareness of the issue, to call it out as unacceptable behaviour and, where appropriate, to educate those who perpetuate this behaviour.
Just nice to see student politics is still going strong really, isn't it?
I wonder if Nick Clegg stays in touch with the student politics scene at all. Does he stay up at night sometimes, wondering "did I sacrifice my seat for this?"
What tax rises are Labour going to impose on the middle classes?
We don't know, but clearly very substantial ones given what they've said about spending. At a guess I would say:
- Restrictions on ISAs and perhaps an outright raid - Pension raid plus restriction or abolition of higher-rate tax relief - Lower threshold for higher-rate tax - Big increases in national insurance, disguised by labelling them as 'employers' contributions - Big increases in council tax, perhaps new bands (although the mechanics of this are difficult) - Increased stamp duty - Extended scope of CGT
Admittedly all that is nowhere near enough, so it's anyone's guess where the rest is coming from. Perhaps some Labour supporters, more in tune than I am with Labour thinking, could enlighten us?
The Labour Party had to withdraw its most recent video (in Scotland only perhaps?) when STV complained, apparently.
That was a commissioned documentary, not news footage
Are we talking about the same video? The one I read about - and which had to be cut before it was reissued - was a spoof news footage of the day after a SNP victory.
@Cyclefree - My guess is that using someone like Freeman will mean a lot more views of the broadcast, something that Labour wants presumably. It's more of an issue for the celebrity, I'd have thought: whether he minds having his private life all over the newspapers as a result of doing it. But most of the Freeman "dirt" was already in the public domain, so water of a duck's back.
Yes, it certainly is going to get interesting for Mr Freeman. I expect people are trawling Company Check as we speak to see what directorships (if any) he holds......I wonder what they'll find?
Just nice to see student politics is still going strong really, isn't it?
I wonder if Nick Clegg stays in touch with the student politics scene at all. Does he stay up at night sometimes, wondering "did I sacrifice my seat for this?"
"The Martin Freeman ad was great. He is at least as successful as the 100, if not more so. "
I agree. It at least gives Labour supporters the confidence that their advertisers and researchers are up to the task.
Except he turns out to be another hypocrite, with a child at private school, £6500 maps on his wall, and no problems with private healthcare.
I wonder if he's on PAYE like the little people?
The power of the Freeman ad is evident when the right try so very, very hard to discredit it.
Not sure where the idea he is a hypocrite comes from. Is it Labour policy to stop people sending their children to private school, owning maps or using private healthcare?
Yes. Wherever possible without direct banning.
Nope, you are just making that up.
It's a fair opinion based on their attitude and policies.
It's an opinion, I guess.
What policies does Labour espouse that lead you to think it wants to ban the ownership of maps?
By increasing tax on the middle classes - how will they afford £6,500 maps? Only the super-rich luvvies will be allowed to purchase them.
(Can't see the point of spending £6,500 on a map myself, but maybe it's seen as an investment).
What tax rises are Labour going to impose on the middle classes?
Ed Balls has said, at least according to today's Evening Standard, that he can't promise people currntly not paying the 40% tax rate won't be dragged into it by him not raising thresholds. That is an effective tax increase.
It's happened most years under the Tories, hasn't it?
"Call me old fashioned but like Ed, the fact that he is quite happy to spawn offspring but not up to getting married which would provide security and certainty for the family says a lot about the chap"
Not like a Tory to be judgemental about people's lifestyles. I bet you don't like poofter's either?
A bit of a leap Roger - on the contrary Cameron legalising same sex marriage has been a long overdue move - why didn't it happen under Labour ?
It happened thanks to Labour. A majority of Conservative MPs voted against.
The scale of the UKIP decline is surely far greater than might have been expected - down substantially from the previous Ashcroft poll in literally every one of the 8 seats.
Tomorrow's debate is now absolutely critical for UKIP. If Farage does well and makes a major impression then maybe UKIP can turn the tide. But if just does OK, and if there isn't a major boost in UKIP media coverage, then UKIP is surely heading for under 10% nationally.
Is there a page where someone has connected UKIP's vote share with their predicted number of seats? E.g. 10% ~ 5 seats, 15% ~ 20 seats, or whatever it is. I'm wondering at what % the graph starts going up steeper. Second derivative in other words.
I think the consensus on here is 5-20% 1-2 seats
If I had to pick a number right now I'd still go for three.
Personally I would say that anywhere in the 7%-12% range and they should pick up 3 seats. 12%-17% they should get another 3-5 or so - and then it starts going up more sharply at the high teens onwards (although this is dependent on what the other parties are doing of course.)
The great irony is that UKIP should be praying for a LibDem resurgence. The two fish in different pools for their voters, and anything which lowers the aggregate Conservative/Labour vote shares is good for UKIP.
This is an excellent point. Similarly UKIP would benefit from the Green surge actually turning up. In the long run, anything which further fragments the vote is good for them, and will be so long as no alternative anti-Europe populist party arrives on the scene.
When the council election results were all added up - and thanks to the second round of voting - the Front National ended up with 62 council seats out of a total of 4,103 up for election.
The question was: could the FN capture transfer votes and make a real breakthrough at this election? And the answer seems to be a resounding 'no'.
Torbay looks like a classic case of will Sanders be able to squeeze the Greens/Reds more than Foster can squeeze the purples.
Presumably the Reds were squeezed down to the solid core last time at 7%, so there's probably not too much scope there - the difference between the 7% and Ashcroft's 11% is probably accounted for by a hard core of 'disgusted of Torbay' voters who won't forgive the LibDems for doing what they said they would do last time round. He can probably grab some of the Greens, but the purples look like an easier squeeze.
What tax rises are Labour going to impose on the middle classes?
We don't know, but clearly very substantial ones given what they've said about spending.
Lucy Car Crash Powell was wittering about expanding the tax base - given record employment, I guess that means bringing more people into tax......lowering personal allowances?
Motion 512: Dear White Gay Men: Stop Appropriating Black Women Submitted by: NUS LGBT Committee
Conference Believes: 1. The appropriation of Black women by white gay men is prevalent within the LGBT scene and community. 2. This may be manifested in the emulation of the mannerisms, language (particularly AAVE - African American Vernacular English) and phrases that can be attributed to Black women. White gay men may often assert that they are “strong black women” or have an “inner black woman”. 3. White gay men are the dominant demographic within the LGBT community, and they benefit from both white privilege and male privilege. 4. The appropriation of Black women by white gay men has been written about extensively. This quote is taken from Sierra Mannie’s TIME piece entitled: “Dear white gays, stop stealing Black Female culture":
“You are not a black woman, and you do not get to claim either blackness or womanhood. There is a clear line between appreciation and appropriation. I need some of you to cut it the hell out. Maybe, for some of you, it’s a presumed mutual appreciation for Beyoncé and weaves that has you thinking that I’m going to be amused by you approaching me in your best “Shanequa from around the way” voice. I don’t know. What I do know is that I don’t care how well you can quote Madea, who told you that your booty was getting bigger than hers, how cute you think it is to call yourself a strong black woman, who taught you to twerk, how funny you think it is to call yourself Quita or Keisha or for which black male you’ve been bottoming — you are not a black woman, and you do not get to claim either blackness or womanhood. It is not yours. It is not for you.”
Conference Further Believes: 1. This type of appropriation is unacceptable and must be addressed. 2. Low numbers of Black LGBT women delegates attend NUS LGBT conference. This can be attributed to many factors, one of which may be the prevalent appropriation by white gay men, which may mean that delegates do not feel comfortable or safe attending conference.
Conference Resolves: 1. To work to eradicate the appropriation of black women by white gay men. 2. To work in conjunction with NUS LGBT campaign to raise awareness of the issue, to call it out as unacceptable behaviour and, where appropriate, to educate those who perpetuate this behaviour.
Just nice to see student politics is still going strong really, isn't it?
I wonder if Nick Clegg stays in touch with the student politics scene at all. snip
@Cyclefree - My guess is that using someone like Freeman will mean a lot more views of the broadcast, something that Labour wants presumably. It's more of an issue for the celebrity, I'd have thought: whether he minds having his private life all over the newspapers as a result of doing it. But most of the Freeman "dirt" was already in the public domain, so water of a duck's back.
It might have been in the public domain, but it hadn't really been brought to the public's attention.
AAAH there you are Mr Palmer, unless you are clucking like a wet hen. what about this bet that you offered me and that I revised with winner donations to respective charities.
Missed your reply, sorry. I proposed a £20 bet on Broxtowe. Did you say yes but proposed that the winner specifies a charity rather than pockets the money? That'd be fine with me. In other words, if Labour wins Broxtowe, you donate £20 to the charity of my choice, and if sopmeone else does, then I donate £20 to one specified by you? Personal details to be registered with Peter the Punter (who will not pass yours on), to avoid the disappearance issue that I've had with one or two other posters. OK?
You've got a blooming cheek suggesting I might welch.. Since you are so damned confident, if you had read my revised post I said 40 to 20. If I win you pay LUPUS UK 40 if you win I'll pay 20 to any charity you might like to mention. There is no need for PTP.
If its not 40/20 you can stick your bet offer where the sun don't shine.
"The Martin Freeman ad was great. He is at least as successful as the 100, if not more so. "
I agree. It at least gives Labour supporters the confidence that their advertisers and researchers are up to the task.
Except he turns out to be another hypocrite, with a child at private school, £6500 maps on his wall, and no problems with private healthcare.
I wonder if he's on PAYE like the little people?
The power of the Freeman ad is evident when the right try so very, very hard to discredit it.
Not sure where the idea he is a hypocrite comes from. Is it Labour policy to stop people sending their children to private school, owning maps or using private healthcare?
Yes. Wherever possible without direct banning.
Nope, you are just making that up.
It's a fair opinion based on their attitude and policies.
It's an opinion, I guess.
What policies does Labour espouse that lead you to think it wants to ban the ownership of maps?
By increasing tax on the middle classes - how will they afford £6,500 maps? Only the super-rich luvvies will be allowed to purchase them.
(Can't see the point of spending £6,500 on a map myself, but maybe it's seen as an investment).
What tax rises are Labour going to impose on the middle classes?
Ed Balls has said, at least according to today's Evening Standard, that he can't promise people currntly not paying the 40% tax rate won't be dragged into it by him not raising thresholds. That is an effective tax increase.
It's happened most years under the Tories, hasn't it?
Yes it has - and will likely continue happening. It's probably the least noticeable way of increasing taxes.
As I've said numerous times, whoever forms the next Government, I expect taxes will rise. But I think they will rise much more under Labour and I also expect them to impose more new taxes as well.
What tax rises are Labour going to impose on the middle classes?
We don't know, but clearly very substantial ones given what they've said about spending. At a guess I would say:
- Restrictions on ISAs and perhaps an outright raid - Pension raid plus restriction or abolition of higher-rate tax relief - Lower threshold for higher-rate tax - Big increases in national insurance, disguised by labelling them as 'employers' contributions - Big increases in council tax, perhaps new bands (although the mechanics of this are difficult) - Increased stamp duty - Extended scope of CGT
Admittedly all that is nowhere near enough, so it's anyone's guess where the rest is coming from. Perhaps some Labour supporters, more in tune than I am with Labour thinking, could enlighten us?
Others are:-
- Bankers' bonus tax - Mansion tax - Lowering the threshold for IHT and abolishing or limiting reliefs. - Possibly higher VAT on "luxury" items.
Just nice to see student politics is still going strong really, isn't it?
I wonder if Nick Clegg stays in touch with the student politics scene at all. Does he stay up at night sometimes, wondering "did I sacrifice my seat for this?"
It's the sheer earnestness that gets me about student politics, every time.
The scars of Actually Having Some Bloody Responsibilty For Once seem to have rubbed off on the Lib Dems, and one consequence has been a draining of their previous earnestness. Not half as smug as they used to be either, and I like them a lot more for it. I used to vote Lib Dem pretty regularly, and that was the one aspect about them that gave me a minor sense of self-loathing at the poling station - that it was giving me one more thing in common with all those trendy-lefty young naive studenty types who'd been filing up in line before me.
I'm tempted to vote for them again, now, as a very minor reward for doing a bit of growing up. I think they need a little encouragement, lest when they disappear to the Opposition benches again they decide another phase of being inconsequential dreamers sounds a whole lot more fun than being useful and hated. In the constituency I'm in at the moment, that might just help them avoid finishing fifth.
"Call me old fashioned but like Ed, the fact that he is quite happy to spawn offspring but not up to getting married which would provide security and certainty for the family says a lot about the chap"
Not like a Tory to be judgemental about people's lifestyles. I bet you don't like poofter's either?
A bit of a leap Roger - on the contrary Cameron legalising same sex marriage has been a long overdue move - why didn't it happen under Labour ?
It happened thanks to Labour. A majority of Conservative MPs voted against.
So why didn't they bring it in when they were in government? When there were even more Labour MPs?
"The Martin Freeman ad was great. He is at least as successful as the 100, if not more so. "
I agree. It at least gives Labour supporters the confidence that their advertisers and researchers are up to the task.
Except he turns out to be another hypocrite, with a child at private school, £6500 maps on his wall, and no problems with private healthcare.
I wonder if he's on PAYE like the little people?
The power of the Freeman ad is evident when the right try so very, very hard to discredit it.
Not sure where the idea he is a hypocrite comes from. Is it Labour policy to stop people sending their children to private school, owning maps or using private healthcare?
Yes. Wherever possible without direct banning.
Nope, you are just making that up.
It's a fair opinion based on their attitude and policies.
It's an opinion, I guess.
What policies does Labour espouse that lead you to think it wants to ban the ownership of maps?
By increasing tax on the middle classes - how will they afford £6,500 maps? Only the super-rich luvvies will be allowed to purchase them.
(Can't see the point of spending £6,500 on a map myself, but maybe it's seen as an investment).
What tax rises are Labour going to impose on the middle classes?
Ed Balls has said, at least according to today's Evening Standard, that he can't promise people currntly not paying the 40% tax rate won't be dragged into it by him not raising thresholds. That is an effective tax increase.
It's happened most years under the Tories, hasn't it?
No, the top tax rate has been 50 or 45 % under the Coalition, it was 40 % under Labour for thirteen years. It's a shame for Freeman that Labour supplied him with such a pathetic script. His reputation has been damaged.
What tax rises are Labour going to impose on the middle classes?
We don't know, but clearly very substantial ones given what they've said about spending. At a guess I would say:
- Restrictions on ISAs and perhaps an outright raid - Pension raid plus restriction or abolition of higher-rate tax relief - Lower threshold for higher-rate tax - Big increases in national insurance, disguised by labelling them as 'employers' contributions - Big increases in council tax, perhaps new bands (although the mechanics of this are difficult) - Increased stamp duty - Extended scope of CGT
Admittedly all that is nowhere near enough, so it's anyone's guess where the rest is coming from. Perhaps some Labour supporters, more in tune than I am with Labour thinking, could enlighten us?
Others are:-
- Bankers' bonus tax - Mansion tax - Lowering the threshold for IHT and abolishing or limiting reliefs. - Possibly higher VAT on "luxury" items.
Porsches, Mansions and bankers bonuses. If this is what the Lib Dems currently describe as middle class taxes, no wonder they are in such a catastrophic position.
It is interesting how much the third and fourth parties are getting squeezed. For example, I am reasonably sure Clegg will be home and dry in Sheffield, particularly with Tory tactical voters.
What tax rises are Labour going to impose on the middle classes?
We don't know, but clearly very substantial ones given what they've said about spending.
Lucy Car Crash Powell was wittering about expanding the tax base - given record employment, I guess that means bringing more people into tax......lowering personal allowances?
Now, now, Ms Vance, that is very naughty of you. As has been pointed out many times, including on here, what Luck Powell meant was that Labour will make sure lots more people are paid more and so will be included in the tax paying sector of the population. Her promise was thus one of improving people wages.
Quite how Labour are going to do this one can only wonder. My own feeling is that Miliband would really like to have a Prices and Incomes policy.
AAAH there you are Mr Palmer, unless you are clucking like a wet hen. what about this bet that you offered me and that I revised with winner donations to respective charities.
Missed your reply, sorry. I proposed a £20 bet on Broxtowe. Did you say yes but proposed that the winner specifies a charity rather than pockets the money? That'd be fine with me. In other words, if Labour wins Broxtowe, you donate £20 to the charity of my choice, and if sopmeone else does, then I donate £20 to one specified by you? Personal details to be registered with Peter the Punter (who will not pass yours on), to avoid the disappearance issue that I've had with one or two other posters. OK?
I can vouch for Square Root. He's not a particularly strong Labour man
given twitter has the blue tick, perhaps OGH could bring in a 'verified by the main man' symbol for those posters he can vouch for and those he'd rank as a bit UKIP?
@Cyclefree - My guess is that using someone like Freeman will mean a lot more views of the broadcast, something that Labour wants presumably. It's more of an issue for the celebrity, I'd have thought: whether he minds having his private life all over the newspapers as a result of doing it. But most of the Freeman "dirt" was already in the public domain, so water of a duck's back.
It might have been in the public domain, but it hadn't really been brought to the public's attention.
I've just bought a bottle of Rose from the Miraval Vinyard. I'm assured Angelina personally rolled around naked to get the very best out of the grapes. For £25 a bottle I would have expected nothing less.
In 5 hours 24 minutes and 18 seconds I'll be submitting my review of it
What tax rises are Labour going to impose on the middle classes?
We don't know, but clearly very substantial ones given what they've said about spending. At a guess I would say:
- Restrictions on ISAs and perhaps an outright raid - Pension raid plus restriction or abolition of higher-rate tax relief - Lower threshold for higher-rate tax - Big increases in national insurance, disguised by labelling them as 'employers' contributions - Big increases in council tax, perhaps new bands (although the mechanics of this are difficult) - Increased stamp duty - Extended scope of CGT
Admittedly all that is nowhere near enough, so it's anyone's guess where the rest is coming from. Perhaps some Labour supporters, more in tune than I am with Labour thinking, could enlighten us?
Others are:-
- Bankers' bonus tax - Mansion tax - Lowering the threshold for IHT and abolishing or limiting reliefs. - Possibly higher VAT on "luxury" items.
The LDs have already officially proposed:
- Scrapping IHT and moving to a beneficiaries tax - ie the recipient gets taxed on everything as income - which amounts to an IHT threshold of £NIL. Plus of course it's all income in one year so anything over £150k will be taxed at 50%.
- Reducing the CGT allowance to £1,500 (currently £11,000).
What tax rises are Labour going to impose on the middle classes?
We don't know, but clearly very substantial ones given what they've said about spending. At a guess I would say:
- Restrictions on ISAs and perhaps an outright raid - Pension raid plus restriction or abolition of higher-rate tax relief - Lower threshold for higher-rate tax - Big increases in national insurance, disguised by labelling them as 'employers' contributions - Big increases in council tax, perhaps new bands (although the mechanics of this are difficult) - Increased stamp duty - Extended scope of CGT
Admittedly all that is nowhere near enough, so it's anyone's guess where the rest is coming from. Perhaps some Labour supporters, more in tune than I am with Labour thinking, could enlighten us?
Others are:-
- Bankers' bonus tax - Mansion tax - Lowering the threshold for IHT and abolishing or limiting reliefs. - Possibly higher VAT on "luxury" items.
The LDs have already officially proposed:
- Scrapping IHT and moving to a beneficiaries tax - ie the recipient gets taxed on everything as income - which amounts to an IHT threshold of £NIL. Plus of course it's all income in one year so anything over £150k will be taxed at 50%.
- Reducing the CGT allowance to £1,500 (currently £11,000).
Charming.
Mind you I can see Labour and the SNP jumping at this stuff too
AAAH there you are Mr Palmer, unless you are clucking like a wet hen. what about this bet that you offered me and that I revised with winner donations to respective charities.
Missed your reply, sorry. I proposed a £20 bet on Broxtowe. Did you say yes but proposed that the winner specifies a charity rather than pockets the money? That'd be fine with me. In other words, if Labour wins Broxtowe, you donate £20 to the charity of my choice, and if sopmeone else does, then I donate £20 to one specified by you? Personal details to be registered with Peter the Punter (who will not pass yours on), to avoid the disappearance issue that I've had with one or two other posters. OK?
I can vouch for Square Root. He's not a particularly strong Labour man
given twitter has the blue tick, perhaps OGH could bring in a 'verified by the main man' symbol for those posters he can vouch for and those he'd rank as a bit UKIP?
But what should the symbol be?
For those a bit UKIP, the letter W followed by an anchor sign?
"Call me old fashioned but like Ed, the fact that he is quite happy to spawn offspring but not up to getting married which would provide security and certainty for the family says a lot about the chap"
Not like a Tory to be judgemental about people's lifestyles. I bet you don't like poofter's either?
A bit of a leap Roger - on the contrary Cameron legalising same sex marriage has been a long overdue move - why didn't it happen under Labour ?
It happened thanks to Labour. A majority of Conservative MPs voted against.
So why didn't they bring it in when they were in government? When there were even more Labour MPs?
Exactly.
A bit like EdM at PMQs with a straight face criticising Cam on hedgies and SDRT.
What tax rises are Labour going to impose on the middle classes?
We don't know, but clearly very substantial ones given what they've said about spending. At a guess I would say:
- Restrictions on ISAs and perhaps an outright raid - Pension raid plus restriction or abolition of higher-rate tax relief - Lower threshold for higher-rate tax - Big increases in national insurance, disguised by labelling them as 'employers' contributions - Big increases in council tax, perhaps new bands (although the mechanics of this are difficult) - Increased stamp duty - Extended scope of CGT
Admittedly all that is nowhere near enough, so it's anyone's guess where the rest is coming from. Perhaps some Labour supporters, more in tune than I am with Labour thinking, could enlighten us?
Others are:-
- Bankers' bonus tax - Mansion tax - Lowering the threshold for IHT and abolishing or limiting reliefs. - Possibly higher VAT on "luxury" items.
- Corporation tax - Fiscal drag
They'd also probably target free pensioner benefits for the middle classes (which I think is fair game to be honest, the Tories only keep them because they need the votes)
I'd also expect big cuts in defence, and cancellations in transport. For the rest, they've made it pretty clear they're happen to hold borrowing at £30-£40bn pa ad infinitum, rather than balance the books.
What tax rises are Labour going to impose on the middle classes?
We don't know, but clearly very substantial ones given what they've said about spending. At a guess I would say:
- Restrictions on ISAs and perhaps an outright raid - Pension raid plus restriction or abolition of higher-rate tax relief - Lower threshold for higher-rate tax - Big increases in national insurance, disguised by labelling them as 'employers' contributions - Big increases in council tax, perhaps new bands (although the mechanics of this are difficult) - Increased stamp duty - Extended scope of CGT
Admittedly all that is nowhere near enough, so it's anyone's guess where the rest is coming from. Perhaps some Labour supporters, more in tune than I am with Labour thinking, could enlighten us?
Others are:-
- Bankers' bonus tax - Mansion tax - Lowering the threshold for IHT and abolishing or limiting reliefs. - Possibly higher VAT on "luxury" items.
The LDs have already officially proposed:
- Scrapping IHT and moving to a beneficiaries tax - ie the recipient gets taxed on everything as income - which amounts to an IHT threshold of £NIL. Plus of course it's all income in one year so anything over £150k will be taxed at 50%.
You'd have to make sure you got the receipts at weddings, birthdays and Christmasses.
@janemerrick23: "man up" klaxon MT @peterdominiczak Danny Alexander claims Ed Balls refusing a three-way debate with him and Osborne."He should man up."
Why debate with someone who is not going to be an MP in a few weeks time?
You think Danny Alexander shouldn't have offered to debate with Ed Balls ?
@janemerrick23: "man up" klaxon MT @peterdominiczak Danny Alexander claims Ed Balls refusing a three-way debate with him and Osborne."He should man up."
Why debate with someone who is not going to be an MP in a few weeks time?
What tax rises are Labour going to impose on the middle classes?
We don't know, but clearly very substantial ones given what they've said about spending. At a guess I would say:
- Restrictions on ISAs and perhaps an outright raid - Pension raid plus restriction or abolition of higher-rate tax relief - Lower threshold for higher-rate tax - Big increases in national insurance, disguised by labelling them as 'employers' contributions - Big increases in council tax, perhaps new bands (although the mechanics of this are difficult) - Increased stamp duty - Extended scope of CGT
Admittedly all that is nowhere near enough, so it's anyone's guess where the rest is coming from. Perhaps some Labour supporters, more in tune than I am with Labour thinking, could enlighten us?
Others are:-
- Bankers' bonus tax - Mansion tax - Lowering the threshold for IHT and abolishing or limiting reliefs. - Possibly higher VAT on "luxury" items.
- Corporation tax - Fiscal drag
They'd also probably target free pensioner benefits for the middle classes (which I think is fair game to be honest, the Tories only keep them because they need the votes)
I'd also expect big cuts in defence, and cancellations in transport. For the rest, they've made it pretty clear they're happen to hold borrowing at £30-£40bn pa ad infinitum, rather than balance the books.
I think Labour have said they would spend more on Defence than the Tories.
Considering defence is already down to the bone, and Labour are committed to keeping Trident (or so they say), it's hard to see that there's much scope for more cuts anyway.
It's a kind of a PC version of Monty Python's Grim Up North sketch. "I were brought up a black lesbian." "Bloody luxury. I were a disabled trans person."
from the bbc: "UKIP has argued against 16 and 17-year-olds being allowed to vote in any future referendum on the EU because they are "brainwashed" in schools with pro-Brussels propaganda"
By way of riposte, I'd argue against those aged 59 and above being allowed to vote in any future referendum on the EU because they were brainwashed in schools with pre-Brussels propaganda.
What tax rises are Labour going to impose on the middle classes?
We don't know, but clearly very substantial ones given what they've said about spending. At a guess I would say:
- Restrictions on ISAs and perhaps an outright raid - Pension raid plus restriction or abolition of higher-rate tax relief - Lower threshold for higher-rate tax - Big increases in national insurance, disguised by labelling them as 'employers' contributions - Big increases in council tax, perhaps new bands (although the mechanics of this are difficult) - Increased stamp duty - Extended scope of CGT
Admittedly all that is nowhere near enough, so it's anyone's guess where the rest is coming from. Perhaps some Labour supporters, more in tune than I am with Labour thinking, could enlighten us?
Others are:-
- Bankers' bonus tax - Mansion tax - Lowering the threshold for IHT and abolishing or limiting reliefs. - Possibly higher VAT on "luxury" items.
- Corporation tax - Fiscal drag
They'd also probably target free pensioner benefits for the middle classes (which I think is fair game to be honest, the Tories only keep them because they need the votes)
I'd also expect big cuts in defence, and cancellations in transport. For the rest, they've made it pretty clear they're happen to hold borrowing at £30-£40bn pa ad infinitum, rather than balance the books.
I think Labour have said they would spend more on Defence than the Tories.
Considering defence is already down to the bone, and Labour are committed to keeping Trident (or so they say), it's hard to see that there's much scope for more cuts anyway.
Would be hard to have a worse record on Defence than the Tories.
@janemerrick23: "man up" klaxon MT @peterdominiczak Danny Alexander claims Ed Balls refusing a three-way debate with him and Osborne."He should man up."
Why debate with someone who is not going to be an MP in a few weeks time?
You think Danny Alexander shouldn't have offered to debate with Ed Balls ?
Are you honestly predicting a Danny Hold ?
I'd have thought Thurso would have more chance personally.
O/T The Telegraph site has a little quiz this morning designed to say which party most matches your views. A little amusement as it asks about how important you think a proposal is as well as whether you agree with it or do not care. Apparently I match most closely with UKIP, which is hardly a surprise.
O/T The Telegraph site has a little quiz this morning designed to say which party most matches your views. A little amusement as it asks about how important you think a proposal is as well as whether you agree with it or do not care. Apparently I match most closely with UKIP, which is hardly a surprise.
What tax rises are Labour going to impose on the middle classes?
We don't know, but clearly very substantial ones given what they've said about spending. At a guess I would say:
- Restrictions on ISAs and perhaps an outright raid - Pension raid plus restriction or abolition of higher-rate tax relief - Lower threshold for higher-rate tax - Big increases in national insurance, disguised by labelling them as 'employers' contributions - Big increases in council tax, perhaps new bands (although the mechanics of this are difficult) - Increased stamp duty - Extended scope of CGT
Admittedly all that is nowhere near enough, so it's anyone's guess where the rest is coming from. Perhaps some Labour supporters, more in tune than I am with Labour thinking, could enlighten us?
Others are:-
- Bankers' bonus tax - Mansion tax - Lowering the threshold for IHT and abolishing or limiting reliefs. - Possibly higher VAT on "luxury" items.
- Corporation tax - Fiscal drag
They'd also probably target free pensioner benefits for the middle classes (which I think is fair game to be honest, the Tories only keep them because they need the votes)
I'd also expect big cuts in defence, and cancellations in transport. For the rest, they've made it pretty clear they're happen to hold borrowing at £30-£40bn pa ad infinitum, rather than balance the books.
I think Labour have said they would spend more on Defence than the Tories.
Considering defence is already down to the bone, and Labour are committed to keeping Trident (or so they say), it's hard to see that there's much scope for more cuts anyway.
Would be hard to have a worse record on Defence than the Tories.
I think the last Labour Government with its various murderous and failed military adventures set the Defence bar impossibly low.
Comments
Of course, you would love Freeman to be a hypocrite. But you may want to learn what the word actually means. Right now, you are throwing around baseless (and libellous) accusations and making yourself look ever so slightly silly.
Paul Waugh@paulwaugh·14s14 seconds ago
LibDems are hearing Ed Balls has turned down TV debate with Danny Alexander. Not confirmed yet tho.
However, if the LibDems recover to the low teens and the Greens stay at 5%, then UKIP can start picking up quite a lot of seats in the high teens.
Longer term, the question is whether UKIP will attract or repel tactical voters. In France, the Front National has done a terrible job of getting tactical votes. Out of 577 members of the French National Assembly, just two are from the FN.
"Tories new campaign video."
Those kinds of ads are a game for any number of players. I hope Labour don't follow the Tories by doing the same even if their agency does it better (which I'm sure they would). It's a zero sum game
@dizzy_thinks: https://t.co/pb9x7lS4XX << If I'm reading this right its that @Ed_Miliband is talking bollocks on zero hour contracts.
Definitely one to avoid unless you have a particularly big risk appetite imo.
What policies does Labour espouse that lead you to think it wants to ban the ownership of maps?
Judging by the make-it-up-as-we-go approach to ZHC, I think it would be wise to wait till the end of the day before answering this question.
Surely it would be possible to devise a Google Maps tax policy, thus covering all bases of being anti-predator-business and anti-tax avoidance and anti-maps, without actually effecting a ban?
"Call me old fashioned but like Ed, the fact that he is quite happy to spawn offspring but not up to getting married which would provide security and certainty for the family says a lot about the chap"
Not like a Tory to be judgemental about people's lifestyles. I bet you don't like poofter's either?
On the whole I tend to think that parties are best not getting celebrity endorsements. They tend not to mean much and the risk of being tarred with whatever skeleton the celebrity has in their cupboard probably outweighs any advantages.
"Calm Down Dear - you aren't even standing in the election"
Debate winner !
Perhaps you could let us know - Balls is being deliberately vague about the specific taxes.
Good job.
I wonder if Nick Clegg stays in touch with the student politics scene at all. Does he stay up at night sometimes, wondering "did I sacrifice my seat for this?"
- Restrictions on ISAs and perhaps an outright raid
- Pension raid plus restriction or abolition of higher-rate tax relief
- Lower threshold for higher-rate tax
- Big increases in national insurance, disguised by labelling them as 'employers' contributions
- Big increases in council tax, perhaps new bands (although the mechanics of this are difficult)
- Increased stamp duty
- Extended scope of CGT
Admittedly all that is nowhere near enough, so it's anyone's guess where the rest is coming from. Perhaps some Labour supporters, more in tune than I am with Labour thinking, could enlighten us?
#nuswomen15 on Twitter is tremendous.
Very close.
That is a classic
Tomorrow's debate is now absolutely critical for UKIP. If Farage does well and makes a major impression then maybe UKIP can turn the tide. But if just does OK, and if there isn't a major boost in UKIP media coverage, then UKIP is surely heading for under 10% nationally.
They could even fall to 7% to 8%.
When the council election results were all added up - and thanks to the second round of voting - the Front National ended up with 62 council seats out of a total of 4,103 up for election.
The question was: could the FN capture transfer votes and make a real breakthrough at this election? And the answer seems to be a resounding 'no'.
"Presented almost without further comment, from the NUS women conference in Solihull,"
Nice to see white gay men keeping in touch with their black feminine side
I wonder if Nick Clegg stays in touch with the student politics scene at all. snip
I suspect he's the loser in the whole episode.
If its not 40/20 you can stick your bet offer where the sun don't shine.
As I've said numerous times, whoever forms the next Government, I expect taxes will rise. But I think they will rise much more under Labour and I also expect them to impose more new taxes as well.
- Bankers' bonus tax
- Mansion tax
- Lowering the threshold for IHT and abolishing or limiting reliefs.
- Possibly higher VAT on "luxury" items.
The scars of Actually Having Some Bloody Responsibilty For Once seem to have rubbed off on the Lib Dems, and one consequence has been a draining of their previous earnestness. Not half as smug as they used to be either, and I like them a lot more for it. I used to vote Lib Dem pretty regularly, and that was the one aspect about them that gave me a minor sense of self-loathing at the poling station - that it was giving me one more thing in common with all those trendy-lefty young naive studenty types who'd been filing up in line before me.
I'm tempted to vote for them again, now, as a very minor reward for doing a bit of growing up. I think they need a little encouragement, lest when they disappear to the Opposition benches again they decide another phase of being inconsequential dreamers sounds a whole lot more fun than being useful and hated. In the constituency I'm in at the moment, that might just help them avoid finishing fifth.
And the NUS have a chuffing cheek, since they've appropriated jazz hands from the poor suffering homosexual community.
Quite how Labour are going to do this one can only wonder. My own feeling is that Miliband would really like to have a Prices and Incomes policy.
But what should the symbol be?
http://www.endole.co.uk/company/06473454/geoffrey-joseph-limited
Perhaps its another Martin Freeman (Actor) born in September 1971......
I've just bought a bottle of Rose from the Miraval Vinyard. I'm assured Angelina personally rolled around naked to get the very best out of the grapes. For £25 a bottle I would have expected nothing less.
In 5 hours 24 minutes and 18 seconds I'll be submitting my review of it
- Scrapping IHT and moving to a beneficiaries tax - ie the recipient gets taxed on everything as income - which amounts to an IHT threshold of £NIL. Plus of course it's all income in one year so anything over £150k will be taxed at 50%.
- Reducing the CGT allowance to £1,500 (currently £11,000).
Is nearly as bad when some Swedish Leftist Feminists wanted to ban porn but only for white males.
http://bit.ly/1BQi0NB
Miss Plato, Colin W's Mum is one of the best posters the site's ever had.
Mind you I can see Labour and the SNP jumping at this stuff too
#Bestvotetory
A bit like EdM at PMQs with a straight face criticising Cam on hedgies and SDRT.
Absolutely shameless.
- Fiscal drag
They'd also probably target free pensioner benefits for the middle classes (which I think is fair game to be honest, the Tories only keep them because they need the votes)
I'd also expect big cuts in defence, and cancellations in transport. For the rest, they've made it pretty clear they're happen to hold borrowing at £30-£40bn pa ad infinitum, rather than balance the books.
Considering defence is already down to the bone, and Labour are committed to keeping Trident (or so they say), it's hard to see that there's much scope for more cuts anyway.
It's a kind of a PC version of Monty Python's Grim Up North sketch. "I were brought up a black lesbian." "Bloody luxury. I were a disabled trans person."
Nothing like political stoodents to be both stupid and self-unaware at the same time.
Reform the NUS to be entirely voluntary and paid for out of the Members' pockets. Easy.
By way of riposte, I'd argue against those aged 59 and above being allowed to vote in any future referendum on the EU because they were brainwashed in schools with pre-Brussels propaganda.
I'd have thought Thurso would have more chance personally.