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
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.
@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?
You mean like a wholly-owned limited company for him to siphon money through and reduce his tax bill? Yep he's got one of those (Geoffrey Joseph Ltd)
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.
Moving to a benificiary tax is eminently sensible. However, it would clearly make sense to allow you to spread your proceeds over a period, say five to ten years, otherwise you have the ridiculous possible situation of parents die when you're 60 and retired, no tax. But if they kick the bucket when you are 59, then it's 50% for you.
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
With pictures of Angelina?
Probably pressed in Brad's pits for a unique salty aftertaste.
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.
The Conservative Party's record on defence is indeed dire and Cameron's so called Strategic Defence Review of 2010 was particularly ill-thought out. However, Labour has absolutely nothing to boast about in this area and a great deal to be ashamed of.
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.
@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?
You mean like a wholly-owned limited company for him to siphon money through and reduce his tax bill? Yep he's got one of those (Geoffrey Joseph Ltd)
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.
As I don't know you at all, I had no reason for special confidence in you - you might be famous for your unambiguous identity, or you might be, say, Grant Shapps. My disappearing bet with Audrey (unless she is lurking and cares to get in touch) has made me cautious. However, Mike vouches for you, and that's good enough for me.
Your bet is fine with me. I nominate Oxfam to receive £20 from you if I win, and will pay £40 to Lupus if I lose.If it's a tie, let's both donate :-).
@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?
You mean like a wholly-owned limited company for him to siphon money through and reduce his tax bill? Yep he's got one of those (Geoffrey Joseph Ltd)
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.
I came out UKIP too - not going to vote for them though
I was 71% Conservative. There seems to be a Doppler effect at work.
87% Con, 63% UKIP, 57% LD, 52% Labour, 27% Green
Other than being pro-Con I find the other breakdowns a bit odd. I'd sooner vote LD than UKIP and Labour to me are no better than Greens. If we'd ended up with AV I'd vote Con 1, LD 2, UKIP 3
@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?
You mean like a wholly-owned limited company for him to siphon money through and reduce his tax bill? Yep he's got one of those (Geoffrey Joseph Ltd)
"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.
Absolutely shameless.
The last Labour government abolished Section 28, removed the ban on gays serving in the armed forces, made it legal for gay couples to adopt children, introduced civil partnerships, introduced equality in next of kin and pension rights, equalised the age of gay consent and so on. Each measure was vociferously opposed by the vast majority of the parliamentary Conservative Party one of whose favourite argument was ""Why is the government spending all this time on minority issues". Then there was the House of Lords that opposed each and every bill of this nature that came before it - no surprises for guessing which party's peers led that - needlessly consuming long amounts of parliamentary and legislative time. Only on PB could we then be lectured by Conservatives about shortcomings in Labour's legislative record on gay rights.
@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?
You mean like a wholly-owned limited company for him to siphon money through and reduce his tax bill? Yep he's got one of those (Geoffrey Joseph Ltd)
But devastating for those of us who still harbour feint distant hopes of the Tories retaining power.
These polls provide yet more evidence, as if we needed any more, that it just ain't gonna happen.
Remove UKIP from the picture though, and the Tories would probably get a thin majority given with what's happening in Scotland to Labour.
"Fruitcakes and loonies" could well be Cameron's epitaph. It sunk his hopes of a second term.
Are we looking at the same set of polls? UKIP are sliding and the Cons are up. If the same is replicated in Con/Lab and Lab/Con marginals then Dave is in with a chance of at least being the largest party.
But devastating for those of us who still harbour feint distant hopes of the Tories retaining power.
These polls provide yet more evidence, as if we needed any more, that it just ain't gonna happen.
Remove UKIP from the picture though, and the Tories would probably get a thin majority given with what's happening in Scotland to Labour.
"Fruitcakes and loonies" could well be Cameron's epitaph. It sunk his hopes of a second term.
Not sure I agree. There has basically long been room for a "none of the above" second-tier party. In the past it was Liberals/SDP/Lib-Dems. The LD's going into the government broke them being the escape valve for "others" and UKIP stepped into the void. I doubt Cameron could have done anything to prevent it.
Its quite possible that the rise of UKIP could counter-intuitively help Cameron. If UKIP were only getting "core UKIP" voters (right wingers) while all "others" went to the opposition Labour would be in a much stronger position.
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.
Moving to a benificiary tax is eminently sensible. However, it would clearly make sense to allow you to spread your proceeds over a period, say five to ten years, otherwise you have the ridiculous possible situation of parents die when you're 60 and retired, no tax. But if they kick the bucket when you are 59, then it's 50% for you.
A beneficiary tax sounds sensible until one thinks about it for a few minutes. As with IHT the really wealthy will have trusts set up so that the beneficiaries don't actually benefit for tax purposes. The only people that will end up paying are the unlucky and the non-rich.
It will be a tax on the middle income home owning class, especially in the South East. It will also be easy to avoid, expensive to collect, and will encourage unpredictable and unwanted behaviours. In short it would be a most awful measure and a bloody stupid tax.
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.
Moving to a benificiary tax is eminently sensible. However, it would clearly make sense to allow you to spread your proceeds over a period, say five to ten years, otherwise you have the ridiculous possible situation of parents die when you're 60 and retired, no tax. But if they kick the bucket when you are 59, then it's 50% for you.
A beneficiary tax sounds sensible until one thinks about it for a few minutes. As with IHT the really wealthy will have trusts set up so that the beneficiaries don't actually benefit for tax purposes. The only people that will end up paying are the unlucky and the non-rich.
It will be a tax on the middle income home owning class, especially in the South East. It will also be easy to avoid, expensive to collect, and will encourage unpredictable and unwanted behaviours. In short it would be a most awful measure and a bloody stupid tax.
The Grexident still could be a black swan. Greece's interior minister has said they will default on their IMF loan if they don't get a bailout extension. Germany seems in no mood to compromise. Merkel seems to have sensed the danger. AfD will poll well enough in Bavaria to oust the CSU from the Bundestag if Greece gets bailout money. The vice-president of the CSU resigned to head off the danger and give Merkel a warning shot, she seems to have realised that a fifth of their coalition may go into the ether if they buckle to Greek demands for debt relief.
"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.
Absolutely shameless.
The last Labour government abolished Section 28, removed the ban on gays serving in the armed forces, made it legal for gay couples to adopt children, introduced civil partnerships, introduced equality in next of kin and pension rights, equalised the age of gay consent and so on. Each measure was vociferously opposed by the vast majority of the parliamentary Conservative Party one of whose favourite argument was ""Why is the government spending all this time on minority issues". Then there was the House of Lords that opposed each and every bill of this nature that came before it - no surprises for guessing which party's peers led that - needlessly consuming long amounts of parliamentary and legislative time. Only on PB could we then be lectured by Conservatives about shortcomings in Labour's legislative record on gay rights.
It is precisely because of Labour's record that some of us (and I am not a Conservative btw) have asked why Labour failed - when they had the time and a huge majority - to do what a Conservative Prime Minister insisted on, in the teeth of opposition from his own party.
Either they did not think it important enough or they did not have the courage. It does not reflect well on them. It does reflect well on Cameron, as even Ed Milliband has accepted.
But devastating for those of us who still harbour feint distant hopes of the Tories retaining power.
These polls provide yet more evidence, as if we needed any more, that it just ain't gonna happen.
Remove UKIP from the picture though, and the Tories would probably get a thin majority given with what's happening in Scotland to Labour.
"Fruitcakes and loonies" could well be Cameron's epitaph. It sunk his hopes of a second term.
It seemed rather encouraging for the Tories, to me. Overall, a swing of 4.8% from Lib Dem to Con in the six Con/Lib Dem marginals that were surveyed.
Lack of incumbency just murders the Lib Dem vote even if was strong before.
Truro and Falmouth looks like a 25% return on investment to me, though I'll be holding remaining capital back for moves against my position.
But it looks like an easy romp home for the Tories and 1-4 is a very nice price.
Indeed, the odds in Lib Dem targets are farcical once you begin considering what kind of night would have to happen for them to take more than one of them. The Lib Dems are odds on to win no new seats, but 1/5 or better can be made in Ashfield, Truro, OW & Ab, Montgomeryshire. Bet on all of those and you'll break even if they win one of them and only lose if the win two! A particularly safe bet given that doesn't even include their best chance: Watford.
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.
There is also some short-odds value in certain LD losses. Labour at 1/10 in Brent Central is the best. Imagine a night where the LDs lose 20+ seats (a best case scenario) but hold Brent Central? I know, you can't. There isn't a 91% chance of Labour winning there, but a 99% chance or better.
HurstLlama/rcs1000 Of course trusts are also liable for IHT when assets are transferred into and out of them. There is no enthusiasm for a beneficiary tax or higher IHT, indeed it is more likely the threshold will be raised or the main residence exempt as the Tories are proposing. IHT is one of the most unpopular taxes in any poll on the issue, a Mansion Tax, higher income tax for the rich, taxes on alcohol and cigarettes are all far more popular
"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.
Absolutely shameless.
The last Labour government abolished Section 28, removed the ban on gays serving in the armed forces, made it legal for gay couples to adopt children, introduced civil partnerships, introduced equality in next of kin and pension rights, equalised the age of gay consent and so on. Each measure was vociferously opposed by the vast majority of the parliamentary Conservative Party one of whose favourite argument was ""Why is the government spending all this time on minority issues". Then there was the House of Lords that opposed each and every bill of this nature that came before it - no surprises for guessing which party's peers led that - needlessly consuming long amounts of parliamentary and legislative time. Only on PB could we then be lectured by Conservatives about shortcomings in Labour's legislative record on gay rights.
It is precisely because of Labour's record that some of us (and I am not a Conservative btw) have asked why Labour failed - when they had the time and a huge majority - to do what a Conservative Prime Minister insisted on, in the teeth of opposition from his own party.
Either they did not think it important enough or they did not have the courage. It does not reflect well on them. It does reflect well on Cameron, as even Ed Milliband has accepted.
I think that we have to accept that it takes time for attitudes to change. Gay marriage is now part of life, and increasingly so around the developed world.
TimT The Hillary email affair is basically a beltway affair and as recent polls have showed has had little impact on her poll ratings, she still leads all Republicans in Ohio according to yesterday's swing state polls and all but Jeb Bush in Florida and Paul in Pennsylvania
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.
The Conservative Party's record on defence is indeed dire and Cameron's so called Strategic Defence Review of 2010 was particularly ill-thought out. However, Labour has absolutely nothing to boast about in this area and a great deal to be ashamed of.
Without using hindsight, what were the major problems in your mind with the 2010 SDR?
I suspect Labour could post dog mess through the letter box in Doncaster North and still hose up.
Imagine my surprise to find on a leaflet that the ordinary restaurant owner who backs Labour's Bristol West candidate, is the wife of a Labour Councillor & past Lord Mayor.
Though I noticed that one of Stephen Williams' happy constituents on one of his leaflets, just happens to be standing for election as a LD councillor.
Mr. Max, what's the potential time frame for such an event?
Medium risk. Depends on how much the Germans want to avoid Greece leaving the Euro. I have always been of the opinion that they will do whatever is necessary to ensure the survival of the European project, but with the danger to Merkel's parters in the Bundestag that may change in favour of political expediency. The CSU will get smashed to pieces by AfD if there is any debt relief for Greece.
HurstLlama/rcs1000 Of course trusts are also liable for IHT when assets are transferred into and out of them. There is no enthusiasm for a beneficiary tax or higher IHT, indeed it is more likely the threshold will be raised or the main residence exempt as the Tories are proposing. IHT is one of the most unpopular taxes in any poll on the issue, a Mansion Tax, higher income tax for the rich, taxes on alcohol and cigarettes are all far more popular
I don't care about the politics, and I would be a clear loser under any move to a beneficiary tax.
However, from a straight economics rationale, an inheritance is an income, and an unearned one at that. It should be treated as income - albeit with a smoothing effect.
I suspect Labour could post dog mess through the letter box in Doncaster North and still hose up.
Imagine my surprise to find on a leaflet that the ordinary restaurant owner who backs Labour's Bristol West candidate, is the wife of a Labour Councillor & past Lord Mayor.
Though I noticed that one of Stephen Williams' happy constituents on one of his leaflets, just happens to be standing for election as a LD councillor.
About as representative as a Question Time audience then.
Matin Freeman seems to be getting rather a hard time I notice. I wasn't too keen on what I saw of the PPB, it seemed designed to make Tories feel bad rather than an encouragement to vote Labour, but the Tories need to ask themselves something. It sounds like Freeman has an interesting political history of his own. But why is it that millionaire luvvies who use private education can despise them so much? I myself was at school with the son of a prominent Labour supporter. There may be a degree of hypocrisy amongst some champagne socialists but I suspect many wouldn't dream of using the 'S'' word to describe themselves. Perhaps in a earlier era they might have voted for the Tory party of McMillan, even if fairly quietly if they were in certain social circles. But they wouldn't dream of voting for the party of Cameron and I don't get the feeling the Tories are in the business of changing minds.
The party has to ask itself though. In a time of declining home ownership and job security, can they really afford to be alienating a significant element of the privileged?
rcs1000 Rubbish, inheritance comes from income which will already have had income tax etc paid on it, no political party with any hope of leading a government is going to introduce a beneficiary tax, it is a complete non-starter and rightly so!
Matin Freeman seems to be getting rather a hard time I notice. I wasn't too keen on what I saw of the PPB, it seemed designed to make Tories feel bad rather than an encouragement to vote Labour, but the Tories need to ask themselves something. It sounds like Freeman has an interesting political history of his own. But why is it that millionaire luvvies who use private education can despise them so much? I myself was at school with the son of a prominent Labour supporter. There may be a degree of hypocrisy amongst some champagne socialists but I suspect many wouldn't dream of using the 'S'' word to describe themselves. Perhaps in a earlier era they might have voted for the Tory party of McMillan, even if fairly quietly if they were in certain social circles. But they wouldn't dream of voting for the party of Cameron and I don't get the feeling the Tories are in the business of changing minds.
The party has to ask itself though. In a time of declining home ownership and job security, can they really afford to be alienating a significant element of the privileged?
I believe Freeman is further Left-wing than the Labour party.
The Scottish seats chosen for today and tomorrow are of interest.
Mm, interesting. Margaret Curran doesn't get any help, after all, despite the arguments of late. Does it imply a prioritization?
I wouldn't like to make negative inferences. We can, however, make positive inferences that Labour thinks that these seats are worth fighting for. To me that suggests a lack of focus, because a couple of these already look decisively lost to me.
I suspect Labour could post dog mess through the letter box in Doncaster North and still hose up.
Imagine my surprise to find on a leaflet that the ordinary restaurant owner who backs Labour's Bristol West candidate, is the wife of a Labour Councillor & past Lord Mayor.
Though I noticed that one of Stephen Williams' happy constituents on one of his leaflets, just happens to be standing for election as a LD councillor.
About as representative as a Question Time audience then.
applause, all stand, cheers, ovation...er jazz hands...
Mr. Max, interesting, although I actually was wondering if there was a risk it could either happen or flare up (but not quite occur) prior to the election.
The Grexident still could be a black swan. Greece's interior minister has said they will default on their IMF loan if they don't get a bailout extension. Germany seems in no mood to compromise. Merkel seems to have sensed the danger. AfD will poll well enough in Bavaria to oust the CSU from the Bundestag if Greece gets bailout money. The vice-president of the CSU resigned to head off the danger and give Merkel a warning shot, she seems to have realised that a fifth of their coalition may go into the ether if they buckle to Greek demands for debt relief.
The Greeks are actually particularly dumb in this instance. They are threatening to default on an IMF loan, not a EFSF or ECB one. In either of those cases, the EU could - possibly - fudge issue by deciding to not put Greece in default.
In the case of the IMF, they go straight into full default mode (it won't be regarded as a 'technical default') and the ECB will insist that Greek bonds are no longer acceptable collateral. Given there will be inevitable capital flight, this will mean that the Greek banks becoming almost instantly insolvent, and in all probability presages capital controls and the government printing Drachma and doing a forced conversion of all loans.
At this point the real pain for Greece begins.
Greek companies will still have Euro denominated obligations to their partners but will only have plummeting Drachma assets to settle them.
The cost of basic imports such as oil, and many foodstuffs would soar.
And then IMF would begin the recovery process, that could involve the confiscation of Greek assets abroad. (Given that Ecuador and Venezuela will likely default this year, the IMF - which doesn't really care about the Eurozone's problems - will need to make an example of Greece.)
It is inevitable that there would be riots in Greece, which would be enormously damaging for Greece's sole meaningful export, tourism.
A bit like EdM at PMQs with a straight face criticising Cam on hedgies and SDRT.
Absolutely shameless.
The last Labour government abolished Section 28, removed the ban on gays serving in the armed forces, made it legal for gay couples to adopt children, introduced civil partnerships, introduced equality in next of kin and pension rights, equalised the age of gay consent and so on. Each measure was vociferously opposed by the vast majority of the parliamentary Conservative Party one of whose favourite argument was ""Why is the government spending all this time on minority issues". Then there was the House of Lords that opposed each and every bill of this nature that came before it - no surprises for guessing which party's peers led that - needlessly consuming long amounts of parliamentary and legislative time. Only on PB could we then be lectured by Conservatives about shortcomings in Labour's legislative record on gay rights.
It is precisely because of Labour's record that some of us (and I am not a Conservative btw) have asked why Labour failed - when they had the time and a huge majority - to do what a Conservative Prime Minister insisted on, in the teeth of opposition from his own party.
Either they did not think it important enough or they did not have the courage. It does not reflect well on them. It does reflect well on Cameron, as even Ed Milliband has accepted.
I think that we have to accept that it takes time for attitudes to change. Gay marriage is now part of life, and increasingly so around the developed world.
You should not pick fruit until they are ready.
Well, that is a rather Conservative view i.e. wait for attitudes to change and then change the law (a view which was ostentatiously and in some cases rather nastily rejected by those who felt that it was too slow) rather than change the law in order to change attitudes - which is more of a Labour view. (I realise I'm taking a very broad brush view.)
But given that Labour did very obviously seek to change attitudes by using legislation it is legitimate to ask why in 13 years they did not take this step. If you are prone to trumpet your progressive credentials by pointing out all the legislation you enacted, then you should not be surprised to find that others point out what you have failed to do.
The Scottish seats chosen for today and tomorrow are of interest.
Mm, interesting. Margaret Curran doesn't get any help, after all, despite the arguments of late. Does it imply a prioritization?
I wouldn't like to make negative inferences. We can, however, make positive inferences that Labour thinks that these seats are worth fighting for. To me that suggests a lack of focus, because a couple of these already look decisively lost to me.
Thanks. That is precisely the assessment I was hoping you would make (not the actual answer so much as the underlying logic).
The Scottish seats chosen for today and tomorrow are of interest.
Mm, interesting. Margaret Curran doesn't get any help, after all, despite the arguments of late. Does it imply a prioritization?
I wouldn't like to make negative inferences. We can, however, make positive inferences that Labour thinks that these seats are worth fighting for. To me that suggests a lack of focus, because a couple of these already look decisively lost to me.
Thanks. That is precisely the assessment I was hoping you would make (not the actual answer so much as the underlying logic).
We'll know SLAB is in full scale civil war if Paisley and Renfrewshire North, but not South is visited
To choose Cumbernauld over Glasgow East suggests they aren't happy with Curran...
While Grexident would be pretty traumatic for Europe, I think it is the very epitome of the "non Black Swan". We all know that a Grexident has a fairly high probability (IIRC UBS estimated that - based on where three year Greek bonds were trading - the market was pricing in a 49% chance of Grexit.)
I'd also remember that the sums involved are fairly small. The Greeks owe about €90bn to private sector lenders, against around €400bn for Venezuela and €100bn for Ecuador. And almost all the private sector debt is in the Greek banks themselves. The effects on the European banking system (outside Greece) would be somewhat less than the fines imposed by the US government on European banks, for example.
The Grexident still could be a black swan. Greece's interior minister has said they will default on their IMF loan if they don't get a bailout extension. Germany seems in no mood to compromise. Merkel seems to have sensed the danger. AfD will poll well enough in Bavaria to oust the CSU from the Bundestag if Greece gets bailout money. The vice-president of the CSU resigned to head off the danger and give Merkel a warning shot, she seems to have realised that a fifth of their coalition may go into the ether if they buckle to Greek demands for debt relief.
The Greeks are actually particularly dumb in this instance. They are threatening to default on an IMF loan, not a EFSF or ECB one. In either of those cases, the EU could - possibly - fudge issue by deciding to not put Greece in default.
In the case of the IMF, they go straight into full default mode (it won't be regarded as a 'technical default') and the ECB will insist that Greek bonds are no longer acceptable collateral. Given there will be inevitable capital flight, this will mean that the Greek banks becoming almost instantly insolvent, and in all probability presages capital controls and the government printing Drachma and doing a forced conversion of all loans.
At this point the real pain for Greece begins.
Greek companies will still have Euro denominated obligations to their partners but will only have plummeting Drachma assets to settle them.
The cost of basic imports such as oil, and many foodstuffs would soar.
And then IMF would begin the recovery process, that could involve the confiscation of Greek assets abroad. (Given that Ecuador and Venezuela will likely default this year, the IMF - which doesn't really care about the Eurozone's problems - will need to make an example of Greece.)
It is inevitable that there would be riots in Greece, which would be enormously damaging for Greece's sole meaningful export, tourism.
Greece would become Europe's Venezeula.
I don't disagree with any of that. I still think Greece should have left ages ago, renegotiate with the IMF for longer terms and lower yields and told the EU/ECB to do one and not expect any repayment since most of those loans were just indirect bank bailouts.
The Scottish seats chosen for today and tomorrow are of interest.
Mm, interesting. Margaret Curran doesn't get any help, after all, despite the arguments of late. Does it imply a prioritization?
I wouldn't like to make negative inferences. We can, however, make positive inferences that Labour thinks that these seats are worth fighting for. To me that suggests a lack of focus, because a couple of these already look decisively lost to me.
Thanks. That is precisely the assessment I was hoping you would make (not the actual answer so much as the underlying logic).
We'll know SLAB is in full scale civil war if Paisley and Renfrewshire North, but not South is visited
To choose Cumbernauld over Glasgow East suggests they aren't happy with Curran...
Mphm. (To those not familiar with Scottish politics, there was a story in the Sunday Herald that some were not happy with certain MPs being given additional support and resources over others -
While Grexident would be pretty traumatic for Europe, I think it is the very epitome of the "non Black Swan". We all know that a Grexident has a fairly high probability (IIRC UBS estimated that - based on where three year Greek bonds were trading - the market was pricing in a 49% chance of Grexit.)
I'd also remember that the sums involved are fairly small. The Greeks owe about €90bn to private sector lenders, against around €400bn for Venezuela and €100bn for Ecuador. And almost all the private sector debt is in the Greek banks themselves. The effects on the European banking system (outside Greece) would be somewhat less than the fines imposed by the US government on European banks, for example.
I think politically the Tories could make a lot of capital out of it though. Show what leftist government leads to, what not paying our way could lead to. Even though it will all be technical bullshit they may convert enough centrist voters that austerity is still necessary and that lurching left like Greece is not a good idea.
"Wouter den Haan, professor of economics at the LSE and a co-director of the Centre for Macroeconomics, told BBC News this afternoon that it was “rare” for macroeconomics to agree as much as they did on the proposition that the coalition’s austerity policies had been bad for growth and jobs. (See 9.18am and 10.03am.)
We asked our panel members whether they agree that the austerity plans of the coalition government had a positive effect on the economy in the UK. And the result is that most people disagreed with that statement. If you leave out the people who neither agreed or disagreed, 81% disagreed or strongly disagreed. It is rare that macroeconomists are that unanimous about something."
I don't disagree with any of that. I still think Greece should have left ages ago, renegotiate with the IMF for longer terms and lower yields and told the EU/ECB to do one and not expect any repayment since most of those loans were just indirect bank bailouts.
An orderly Grexit, with the country governed by a party with sensible economic plans, would clearly have been the best option for Greece.
Unfortunately, they have managed to pi55 off the IMF (who described them as the worst country they've had to deal with in the 70 years of the institution), and to have a government committed to Chavez-ian policies.
The second best option for Greece (after sensible Grexit) was to negotiate hard, and take the - incredibly generous - offer that was on the table: i.e. continued reforms and privatisations in return for lowered interest payment, increased maturities, an interest holiday, and bonds where repayment was linked to GDP growth. This was an - effective - 35-40% write off in the value of Greece's debt.
The worst option is to fall out of the Euro having pissed everyone off and attempt to follow Communist economic policies.
"Wouter den Haan, professor of economics at the LSE and a co-director of the Centre for Macroeconomics, told BBC News this afternoon that it was “rare” for macroeconomics to agree as much as they did on the proposition that the coalition’s austerity policies had been bad for growth and jobs. (See 9.18am and 10.03am.)
We asked our panel members whether they agree that the austerity plans of the coalition government had a positive effect on the economy in the UK. And the result is that most people disagreed with that statement. If you leave out the people who neither agreed or disagreed, 81% disagreed or strongly disagreed. It is rare that macroeconomists are that unanimous about something."
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.
Moving to a benificiary tax is eminently sensible. However, it would clearly make sense to allow you to spread your proceeds over a period, say five to ten years, otherwise you have the ridiculous possible situation of parents die when you're 60 and retired, no tax. But if they kick the bucket when you are 59, then it's 50% for you.
I'm lost. People who retire at 60 don't for that reason stop paying income tax. Even if they did, so what? That will only make the first £10,600 of the inheritance tax-free.
Edit: Of course, in this case the question is spectacularly stupid too, as antifrank's link points out. Every man and his dog, even economists, understand that austerity lowers GDP in the short-term.
I'd have thought SLAB may have a better chance gaining Swinson's seat rather than holding Cumbernauld actually. More ABC demographic, only a slightly smaller majority over the Nats and the Yes % quite a bit lower too.
The Scottish seats chosen for today and tomorrow are of interest.
Mm, interesting. Margaret Curran doesn't get any help, after all, despite the arguments of late. Does it imply a prioritization?
I wouldn't like to make negative inferences. We can, however, make positive inferences that Labour thinks that these seats are worth fighting for. To me that suggests a lack of focus, because a couple of these already look decisively lost to me.
It's full headless chicken mode.
Of those seven seats the only ones where they have even the remotest chance of holding on are Airdrie and Shotts and Edinburgh South. The other 5 are a completely wasted trip, you would think they would have been better going to East Ren or Paisley South.
@antifrank "Free market" think tank rubbishes economists and hails business leaders! Shock, horror......... ohhhhh the utter humanity of it all. *weeps"
The groupthink of a community of people who see the world in binary.
ISIS, UKIP and Radical Swedish feminists really are peas in a pod.
I was disappointed that Google translate didn't quite cope with:
The taxpayer-funded porn films showed up several sex scenes between white women and black men. One of them is directed by Joanna Rytel, previously declared that she "never going to give birth to a white man" and call themselves "ni**erlovingfetischistkärring". In the film goes Rytel around town and exposes himself in places where children are present.
What makes for an entertaining count? A big name biting their nails (preferably humbled), a big swing, lots of different parties interested, some proper joke candidates and (ideally) a minor scuffle. The best chance of all of those things looks to be Thanet South.
Comments
The groupthink of a community of people who see the world in binary.
ISIS, UKIP and Radical Swedish feminists really are peas in a pod.
Now what would Ed call him if he was a Tory?
Mr. Llama, alas, I must agree on Defence.
Congrats on your drawn victory in Diplomacy V.
Your bet is fine with me. I nominate Oxfam to receive £20 from you if I win, and will pay £40 to Lupus if I lose.If it's a tie, let's both donate :-).
Other than being pro-Con I find the other breakdowns a bit odd. I'd sooner vote LD than UKIP and Labour to me are no better than Greens. If we'd ended up with AV I'd vote Con 1, LD 2, UKIP 3
But devastating for those of us who still harbour feint distant hopes of the Tories retaining power.
These polls provide yet more evidence, as if we needed any more, that it just ain't gonna happen.
Remove UKIP from the picture though, and the Tories would probably get a thin majority given with what's happening in Scotland to Labour.
"Fruitcakes and loonies" could well be Cameron's epitaph. It sunk his hopes of a second term.
It's Lynton's fault I'm telling you, precisely the same thing happened to me in 2005.
His methods might be effective but I can't stand them !
65% Green
53% UKIP
45% Lib Dems
32% Conservative
Its quite possible that the rise of UKIP could counter-intuitively help Cameron. If UKIP were only getting "core UKIP" voters (right wingers) while all "others" went to the opposition Labour would be in a much stronger position.
Truro and Falmouth looks like a 25% return on investment to me, though I'll be holding remaining capital back for moves against my position.
But it looks like an easy romp home for the Tories and 1-4 is a very nice price.
Fortunately, in the article itself, she made clear that she only hates those men who aren't radical feminists.
It will be a tax on the middle income home owning class, especially in the South East. It will also be easy to avoid, expensive to collect, and will encourage unpredictable and unwanted behaviours. In short it would be a most awful measure and a bloody stupid tax.
I'm off to follow her on twitter.
http://order-order.com/2015/04/01/miliband-fakes-supporters-on-own-leaflet
Mr. F, I think we should judge people by the content of their character, rather than the contents of their trousers.
http://www.theguardian.com/culture/shortcuts/2015/apr/01/martin-freeman-good-advert-for-labour
Perhaps they think its 'vanilla tax avoidance and everybody does it'?
My point was more about when they start in 2nd place in an apparently tight race - Ashfield, Truro, Montyshire
Either they did not think it important enough or they did not have the courage. It does not reflect well on them. It does reflect well on Cameron, as even Ed Milliband has accepted.
It seems to have a lot of cash assets.
http://www.endole.co.uk/company/06473454/geoffrey-joseph-limited
You should not pick fruit until they are ready.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/…/11509473/Holborn-fire-live.html
Hoping for an extra day off work tomorrow!
This one:
http://www.edmilibandmp.com
Has nowt - possibly because he's no longer an MP?
And this one:
http://www.edmiliband.com
Doesn't look like it's his......
Though I noticed that one of Stephen Williams' happy constituents on one of his leaflets, just happens to be standing for election as a LD councillor.
https://lab3seats.wordpress.com/
The Scottish seats chosen for today and tomorrow are of interest.
However, from a straight economics rationale, an inheritance is an income, and an unearned one at that. It should be treated as income - albeit with a smoothing effect.
Other service activities n.e.c. (96090)
http://www.endole.co.uk/company/06574918/silveta-limited
The party has to ask itself though. In a time of declining home ownership and job security, can they really afford to be alienating a significant element of the privileged?
I believe Freeman is further Left-wing than the Labour party.
Best of luck holding that one...
In the case of the IMF, they go straight into full default mode (it won't be regarded as a 'technical default') and the ECB will insist that Greek bonds are no longer acceptable collateral. Given there will be inevitable capital flight, this will mean that the Greek banks becoming almost instantly insolvent, and in all probability presages capital controls and the government printing Drachma and doing a forced conversion of all loans.
At this point the real pain for Greece begins.
Greek companies will still have Euro denominated obligations to their partners but will only have plummeting Drachma assets to settle them.
The cost of basic imports such as oil, and many foodstuffs would soar.
And then IMF would begin the recovery process, that could involve the confiscation of Greek assets abroad. (Given that Ecuador and Venezuela will likely default this year, the IMF - which doesn't really care about the Eurozone's problems - will need to make an example of Greece.)
It is inevitable that there would be riots in Greece, which would be enormously damaging for Greece's sole meaningful export, tourism.
Greece would become Europe's Venezeula.
But given that Labour did very obviously seek to change attitudes by using legislation it is legitimate to ask why in 13 years they did not take this step. If you are prone to trumpet your progressive credentials by pointing out all the legislation you enacted, then you should not be surprised to find that others point out what you have failed to do.
To choose Cumbernauld over Glasgow East suggests they aren't happy with Curran...
While Grexident would be pretty traumatic for Europe, I think it is the very epitome of the "non Black Swan". We all know that a Grexident has a fairly high probability (IIRC UBS estimated that - based on where three year Greek bonds were trading - the market was pricing in a 49% chance of Grexit.)
I'd also remember that the sums involved are fairly small. The Greeks owe about €90bn to private sector lenders, against around €400bn for Venezuela and €100bn for Ecuador. And almost all the private sector debt is in the Greek banks themselves. The effects on the European banking system (outside Greece) would be somewhat less than the fines imposed by the US government on European banks, for example.
The unshakeable notion of ever greater union, ever expanding single currency etc etc would've been shattered.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CBhJNzpU0AABeDd.jpg
Contenders must be:
Hallam
Thanet South
Portsmouth South
Paisley & Renfrewshire South.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/scottish-politics/scottish-labour-accused-of-giving-up-in-key-election-marginals.121872445 )
"Wouter den Haan, professor of economics at the LSE and a co-director of the Centre for Macroeconomics, told BBC News this afternoon that it was “rare” for macroeconomics to agree as much as they did on the proposition that the coalition’s austerity policies had been bad for growth and jobs. (See 9.18am and 10.03am.)
We asked our panel members whether they agree that the austerity plans of the coalition government had a positive effect on the economy in the UK. And the result is that most people disagreed with that statement. If you leave out the people who neither agreed or disagreed, 81% disagreed or strongly disagreed. It is rare that macroeconomists are that unanimous about something."
Unfortunately, they have managed to pi55 off the IMF (who described them as the worst country they've had to deal with in the 70 years of the institution), and to have a government committed to Chavez-ian policies.
The second best option for Greece (after sensible Grexit) was to negotiate hard, and take the - incredibly generous - offer that was on the table: i.e. continued reforms and privatisations in return for lowered interest payment, increased maturities, an interest holiday, and bonds where repayment was linked to GDP growth. This was an - effective - 35-40% write off in the value of Greece's debt.
The worst option is to fall out of the Euro having pissed everyone off and attempt to follow Communist economic policies.
Why the survey asking economists about austerity was... well... stupid. Spot on by @MrRBourne http://www.iea.org.uk/blog/austerity-and-silly-surveys …
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3623669/How-364-economists-got-it-totally-wrong.html
Edit: Of course, in this case the question is spectacularly stupid too, as antifrank's link points out. Every man and his dog, even economists, understand that austerity lowers GDP in the short-term.
Labour 285, Conservatives 261, SNP 52, Lib Dems 28 and UKIP 5.
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/04/01/what-does-yougov-nowcast-mean-parties/
Of those seven seats the only ones where they have even the remotest chance of holding on are Airdrie and Shotts and Edinburgh South. The other 5 are a completely wasted trip, you would think they would have been better going to East Ren or Paisley South.
"Free market" think tank rubbishes economists and hails business leaders!
Shock, horror.........
ohhhhh the utter humanity of it all.
*weeps"