Paul Waugh @paulwaugh · 7m7 minutes ago The fightback. RT @JBeattieMirror Letter to Mirror signed by 100 ppl backing Labour. Cafe workers, biz leaders,celebs
@NCPoliticsUK: For tomorrow's debate, I'm hearing there could be as many as FIVE snap opinion polls afterwards... Will try to keep up! #GE2015 #tvdebates
What are the odds on 5 different winners...
YouGov, ICM and Populus are all confirmed.
Are these "who won the debate" polls or "who will you vote for" polls?
Can I vote on which poll won the poll on the debate? What colour will the presenters tie be?
Smarmeron - I think the bigger point about this letter is being missed. 103 people isn't that many. There must be about 1000 FTSE directors and perhaps 2000 FTSE 250. Very few of them seem to want to come out of the woodwork and publicly back the Tories in spite of Miliband being less than warm towards the CBI and the like. If this is the best the Tories can do, they've got problems. I'm not sure what the point of Labour's response is, they should have just pointed out that the vast majority of our major businesspeople didn't sign the letter and many who did are people who've been honoured by Cameron or given the Tories money.
Re Ashcroft polls of seven LD/CON marginals. UNS using Guardian poll of polls, (Con 34,Lab 34 ,LD 8 )would give one hold and six losses.Ashcroft polls show four holds Cambridge,Torbay,St Ives and N Cornwall and 3 losses Hallam,St Austell and N Devon.So some evidence of fortress strategy working.An improvement in national poll ratings would help as may naming candidates in the question.
Looks like Labour has produced it`s own letter of 100 signatories to be published in the Guardian.
Face it mate. You are at all out war with business. Business that employs untold millions and pays untold billions in taxes.
Small business. Big business. The self employed. Anybody who isn;t a 'right on' wealthy guy like a senior civil servant or that f8ckwit actor who did your commercial.
Among the 103 signatories of the letter, published on the front page of the Daily Telegraph this morning, are four Conservative members of the House of Lords – all ennobled by David Cameron.
The Prime Minister also doled out 18 MBEs, OBEs, CBEs and knighthoods to signatories of the letter over the last parliament.
A total of 32 of the signatories are Conservative donors, having donated a total of £9m to the party when family and company donations are taken into account.
Nine of those who signed the letter had given at least six-figure sums, with the smallest donation still well over a thousand pounds.
More or less of an issue than 26% of Labour MP's using zero hour contracts?
"Not a character assassination at all unless you think that arranging your affairs legally to minimise the tax you pay is somehow a bad thing."
Then what has the tax affairs of his girlfriend got to do with anything. Are we so old fashioned that we think a woman cant deal with her own affairs without a man taking responsibility?
What I don't need or care for is a lot of Labour luvvies pretending that they are morally superior to me because they support Labour and I don't.
Well put. It's just bloody irritating.
And to forestall argument, yes that would apply to Tories pretending they are morally superior to me because they support the Tories and I don't, which does happen, although my feeling is that for the lazy type of attachs while Labour fall back on the condescending implication that they are inherently more decent and moral than the Tories, the Tories fall back more often on the implication only fools vote for someone other than them.
This only applies to the very laziest of attacks mind you, the basest of tactics.
Agreed. There are decent people across the political spectrum and this lazy assumption that your political opponent must be a fool or a knave is odious.
Since it's nearly Easter, it might be worth pointing out that Jesus described such people very well when he pointed to the Pharisees, ostentatiously displaying their religiosity to all and sundry. He had something to say about rich men as well.
BBC1 6pm News - repeat of yesterday - 10 minute report 100% on Con + Lab - followed by Landale doing a sum-up - 100% on Con + Lab.
Then presenter says round-up of other election news - 10 seconds on Clegg (without him speaking), 10 seconds on UKIP (without any UKIPer speaking), 10 seconds on Samantha Cameron(!)
This pattern appears to be getting firmly established. If it carries on I can see Con + Lab getting 73% combined - ie 39/34, 38/35 or 37/36 - in whichever order you prefer.
LD, UKIP and Green are not going to have a chance - LD 9, UKIP 8, Green 4 would be my best guess.
I missed the news, too busy playing in the street.
Looks like Labour has produced it`s own letter of 100 signatories to be published in the Guardian.
Face it mate. You are at all out war with business. Business that employs untold millions and pays untold billions in taxes.
Small business. Big business. The self employed. Anybody who isn;t a 'right on' wealthy guy like a senior civil servant or that f8ckwit actor who did your commercial.
Fatcat business leaders support the Tories. Well knock me down with a feather.
BBC1 6pm News - repeat of yesterday - 10 minute report 100% on Con + Lab - followed by Landale doing a sum-up - 100% on Con + Lab.
Then presenter says round-up of other election news - 10 seconds on Clegg (without him speaking), 10 seconds on UKIP (without any UKIPer speaking), 10 seconds on Samantha Cameron(!)
This pattern appears to be getting firmly established. If it carries on I can see Con + Lab getting 73% combined - ie 39/34, 38/35 or 37/36 - in whichever order you prefer.
LD, UKIP and Green are not going to have a chance - LD 9, UKIP 8, Green 4 would be my best guess.
Agree the BBC has clearly decided on a two horse race approach.
BBC1 6pm News - repeat of yesterday - 10 minute report 100% on Con + Lab - followed by Landale doing a sum-up - 100% on Con + Lab.
Then presenter says round-up of other election news - 10 seconds on Clegg (without him speaking), 10 seconds on UKIP (without any UKIPer speaking), 10 seconds on Samantha Cameron(!)
This pattern appears to be getting firmly established. If it carries on I can see Con + Lab getting 73% combined - ie 39/34, 38/35 or 37/36 - in whichever order you prefer.
LD, UKIP and Green are not going to have a chance - LD 9, UKIP 8, Green 4 would be my best guess.
What can OFCOM do if UKIP and the Lib Dems are not treated fairly as major parties?
It may not be the end of the world as a lot of people are sick of the GE and it is still over a month away.
Poor Freeman..he naively wandered into the dark forest of Politics and found a pack of wolves waiting for him..He is a good actor,perhaps he should stick to that.
or he should declare an interest. He can hold whatever views he wants and speak about them, but he should tell people just what his own position is. 'Even though I run my tax affairs through a private company I still think ....'
Why has the press been some braindeadly awful at understanding what the ComRes Scotland Labour Constituencies Only poll means.
The coverage, bar ITV, has almost been entirely incorrect.
The coverage has been dreadful. It's as if someone produced a poll showing Labour ahead by 6% in the constituencies that voted Conservative in 2010, and it was treated as a national Labour lead of 6%.
Most journalists are innumerate. I'm not sure that there's much more to it than that.
The National has a rather brief but reasonable account here, on a inside page*, and doesn't make it a huge screaming story (sensibly enough, on the principle that bears crap in forests, support Rangers FC, etc.):
The other difference between it and the other newspapers is that the latter, and the state broadcaster, are mostly rabidly pro-union and anti-SNP. I couldn't possibly comment.
*Correction. None of their stories are on the front page! But for something so good for the SNP it's not being played up in an exaggerated manner.
BBC1 6pm News - repeat of yesterday - 10 minute report 100% on Con + Lab - followed by Landale doing a sum-up - 100% on Con + Lab.
Then presenter says round-up of other election news - 10 seconds on Clegg (without him speaking), 10 seconds on UKIP (without any UKIPer speaking), 10 seconds on Samantha Cameron(!)
This pattern appears to be getting firmly established. If it carries on I can see Con + Lab getting 73% combined - ie 39/34, 38/35 or 37/36 - in whichever order you prefer.
LD, UKIP and Green are not going to have a chance - LD 9, UKIP 8, Green 4 would be my best guess.
It may not be the end of the world as a lot of people are sick of the GE and it is still over a month away.
Really? We seem to have jumped from 'No normal people are thinking about the GE yet' to 'A lot of people are sick of the GE already' very quickly.
taffys - 'all out war with business'. Really? A tiny fraction of FTSE exes and a few others sign a bland letter to the Telegraph. I wouldn't call that all out war. More a nuisance rebellion that should be crushed with ease.
Looks like Labour has produced it`s own letter of 100 signatories to be published in the Guardian.
Face it mate. You are at all out war with business. Business that employs untold millions and pays untold billions in taxes.
Small business. Big business. The self employed. Anybody who isn;t a 'right on' wealthy guy like a senior civil servant or that f8ckwit actor who did your commercial.
Perhaps you should wait for the Guardian tomorrow before deciding.
Besides the coverage today was far more positive to Labour than to the Tories.
Smarmeron - I think the bigger point about this letter is being missed. 103 people isn't that many. There must be about 1000 FTSE directors and perhaps 2000 FTSE 250. Very few of them seem to want to come out of the woodwork and publicly back the Tories in spite of Miliband being less than warm towards the CBI and the like. If this is the best the Tories can do, they've got problems. I'm not sure what the point of Labour's response is, they should have just pointed out that the vast majority of our major businesspeople didn't sign the letter and many who did are people who've been honoured by Cameron or given the Tories money.
They could have done that if they hadn't started the week trumpeting all those businessmen complaining about the EU referendum as part of their "Labour will be better for business" campaign.
They should have anticipated what might happen and been better prepared.
Given everything Milliband has said about business, trying to pretend - in a somewhat hafl-hearted way and on a topic (the EU) where they face obvious attacks from UKIP - that somehow Labour are on their side was just bizarre and inept.
"Not a character assassination at all unless you think that arranging your affairs legally to minimise the tax you pay is somehow a bad thing."
Then what has the tax affairs of his girlfriend got to do with anything. Are we so old fashioned that we think a woman cant deal with her own affairs without a man taking responsibility?
What I don't need or care for is a lot of Labour luvvies pretending that they are morally superior to me because they support Labour and I don't.
Well put. It's just bloody irritating.
And to forestall argument, yes that would apply to Tories pretending they are morally superior to me because they support the Tories and I don't, which does happen, although my feeling is that for the lazy type of attachs while Labour fall back on the condescending implication that they are inherently more decent and moral than the Tories, the Tories fall back more often on the implication only fools vote for someone other than them.
This only applies to the very laziest of attacks mind you, the basest of tactics.
Agreed. There are decent people across the political spectrum and this lazy assumption that your political opponent must be a fool or a knave is odious.
Since it's nearly Easter, it might be worth pointing out that Jesus described such people very well when he pointed to the Pharisees, ostentatiously displaying their religiosity to all and sundry. He had something to say about rich men as well.
That's not how David Cameron would describe Easter... Getting stick from the comments section after his wishy washy Easter message (attempt to win votes)
At least Clegg and Mikiband are honest that they are atheists... As with Europe Cameron shifts and slides and tries to be all things to everyone without meaning anything
BBC1 6pm News - repeat of yesterday - 10 minute report 100% on Con + Lab - followed by Landale doing a sum-up - 100% on Con + Lab.
Then presenter says round-up of other election news - 10 seconds on Clegg (without him speaking), 10 seconds on UKIP (without any UKIPer speaking), 10 seconds on Samantha Cameron(!)
This pattern appears to be getting firmly established. If it carries on I can see Con + Lab getting 73% combined - ie 39/34, 38/35 or 37/36 - in whichever order you prefer.
LD, UKIP and Green are not going to have a chance - LD 9, UKIP 8, Green 4 would be my best guess.
What can OFCOM do if UKIP and the Lib Dems are not treated fairly as major parties?
It may not be the end of the world as a lot of people are sick of the GE and it is still over a month away.
UKIP are not a Major Party in the way the Liberals, Labour and Tories are.
I suggest you read both the OFCOM ruling and the OFCOM rules as you seem to be wrong about both.
"Not a character assassination at all unless you think that arranging your affairs legally to minimise the tax you pay is somehow a bad thing."
Then what has the tax affairs of his girlfriend got to do with anything. Are we so old fashioned that we think a woman cant deal with her own affairs without a man taking responsibility?
What I don't need or care for is a lot of Labour luvvies pretending that they are morally superior to me because they support Labour and I don't.
Well put. It's just bloody irritating.
And to forestall argument, yes that would apply to Tories pretending they are morally superior to me because they support the Tories and I don't, which does happen, although my feeling is that for the lazy type of attachs while Labour fall back on the condescending implication that they are inherently more decent and moral than the Tories, the Tories fall back more often on the implication only fools vote for someone other than them.
This only applies to the very laziest of attacks mind you, the basest of tactics.
Agreed. There are decent people across the political spectrum and this lazy assumption that your political opponent must be a fool or a knave is odious.
Since it's nearly Easter, it might be worth pointing out that Jesus described such people very well when he pointed to the Pharisees, ostentatiously displaying their religiosity to all and sundry. He had something to say about rich men as well.
That's not how David Cameron would describe Easter... Getting stick from the comments section after his wishy washy Easter message (attempt to win votes)
At least Clegg and Mikiband are honest that they are atheists... As with Europe Cameron shifts and slides and tries to be all things to everyone without meaning anything
Cameron seems to know as much about Christianity as I do about quantum physics. He needs to retune that radio. Or get a proper catechism.
"Not a character assassination at all unless you think that arranging your affairs legally to minimise the tax you pay is somehow a bad thing."
Then what has the tax affairs of his girlfriend got to do with anything. Are we so old fashioned that we think a woman cant deal with her own affairs without a man taking responsibility?
What I don't need or care for is a lot of Labour luvvies pretending that they are morally superior to me because they support Labour and I don't.
Well put. It's just bloody irritating.
And to forestall argument, yes that would apply to Tories pretending they are morally superior to me because they support the Tories and I don't, which does happen, although my feeling is that for the lazy type of attachs while Labour fall back on the condescending implication that they are inherently more decent and moral than the Tories, the Tories fall back more often on the implication only fools vote for someone other than them.
This only applies to the very laziest of attacks mind you, the basest of tactics.
Agreed. There are decent people across the political spectrum and this lazy assumption that your political opponent must be a fool or a knave is odious.
Since it's nearly Easter, it might be worth pointing out that Jesus described such people very well when he pointed to the Pharisees, ostentatiously displaying their religiosity to all and sundry. He had something to say about rich men as well.
That's not how David Cameron would describe Easter... Getting stick from the comments section after his wishy washy Easter message (attempt to win votes)
At least Clegg and Mikiband are honest that they are atheists... As with Europe Cameron shifts and slides and tries to be all things to everyone without meaning anything
Cameron seems to know as much about Christianity as I do about quantum physics. He needs to retune that radio. Or get a proper catechism.
"Not a character assassination at all unless you think that arranging your affairs legally to minimise the tax you pay is somehow a bad thing."
Then what has the tax affairs of his girlfriend got to do with anything. Are we so old fashioned that we think a woman cant deal with her own affairs without a man taking responsibility?
What I don't need or care for is a lot of Labour luvvies pretending that they are morally superior to me because they support Labour and I don't.
Well put. It's just bloody irritating.
And to forestall argument, yes that would apply to Tories pretending they are morally superior to me because they support the Tories and I don't, which does happen, although my feeling is that for the lazy type of attachs while Labour fall back on the condescending implication that they are inherently more decent and moral than the Tories, the Tories fall back more often on the implication only fools vote for someone other than them.
This only applies to the very laziest of attacks mind you, the basest of tactics.
Agreed. There are decent people across the political spectrum and this lazy assumption that your political opponent must be a fool or a knave is odious.
Since it's nearly Easter, it might be worth pointing out that Jesus described such people very well when he pointed to the Pharisees, ostentatiously displaying their religiosity to all and sundry. He had something to say about rich men as well.
That's not how David Cameron would describe Easter... Getting stick from the comments section after his wishy washy Easter message (attempt to win votes)
At least Clegg and Mikiband are honest that they are atheists... As with Europe Cameron shifts and slides and tries to be all things to everyone without meaning anything
Cameron seems to know as much about Christianity as I do about quantum physics. He needs to retune that radio. Or get a proper catechism.
"Absolutely, and i apologise for any unintended slur.
Hmm, with £40 at stake, I'd better do some canvassing instead of faffing about here, eh?"
I'd be curious to know the effect of the business people's signatures. My suspicion was that it would backfire. The connection between big business and Tories being inherently unattractive. I'd be curious to hear your feed back
Ashcroft said the letter from businessmen complaining about Labour in 2010 did not have the effect the Tories thought it did.
"the collection of hundreds of business endorsements for the Conservative policy, including dozens from famous names left the voters nonplussed...The endorsements helped to generate news, and added to the policy’s credibility among commentators, all of which made the exercise worthwhile. But voters saw it simply as a series of business people supporting what was in their own private interests. There might well be good reasons to support the policy, but the fact that it would make certain businessmen richer was not one of them"
"Not a character assassination at all unless you think that arranging your affairs legally to minimise the tax you pay is somehow a bad thing."
Then what has the tax affairs of his girlfriend got to do with anything. Are we so old fashioned that we think a woman cant deal with her own affairs without a man taking responsibility?
What I don't need or care for is a lot of Labour luvvies pretending that they are morally superior to me because they support Labour and I don't.
Well put. It's just bloody irritating.
And to forestall argument, yes that would apply to Tories pretending they are morally superior to me because they support the Tories and I don't, which does happen, although my feeling is that for the lazy type of attachs while Labour fall back on the condescending implication that they are inherently more decent and moral than the Tories, the Tories fall back more often on the implication only fools vote for someone other than them.
This only applies to the very laziest of attacks mind you, the basest of tactics.
Agreed. There are decent people across the political spectrum and this lazy assumption that your political opponent must be a fool or a knave is odious.
Since it's nearly Easter, it might be worth pointing out that Jesus described such people very well when he pointed to the Pharisees, ostentatiously displaying their religiosity to all and sundry. He had something to say about rich men as well.
That's not how David Cameron would describe Easter... Getting stick from the comments section after his wishy washy Easter message (attempt to win votes)
At least Clegg and Mikiband are honest that they are atheists... As with Europe Cameron shifts and slides and tries to be all things to everyone without meaning anything
Cameron seems to know as much about Christianity as I do about quantum physics. He needs to retune that radio. Or get a proper catechism.
Jobbing actors are unlikely to be "employees" as such, so, like painters and decorators, management consultants, car valeters, freelance writers and window cleaners, it wouldn't seem strange that actors might create a company and handle their fees through that.
I assume his company is paying its fair share of corporation tax and VAT, that he's not putting personal expenses through the books, and that he's paying tax on any dividends that take him into the 40%/45% brackets. What more should this actor/company director do?
"Absolutely, and i apologise for any unintended slur.
Hmm, with £40 at stake, I'd better do some canvassing instead of faffing about here, eh?"
I'd be curious to know the effect of the business people's signatures. My suspicion was that it would backfire. The connection between big business and Tories being inherently unattractive. I'd be curious to hear your feed back
Ashcroft said the letter from businessmen complaining about Labour in 2010 did not have the effect the Tories thought it did.
"the collection of hundreds of business endorsements for the Conservative policy, including dozens from famous names left the voters nonplussed...There might well be good reasons to support the policy, but the fact that it would make certain businessmen richer was not one of them"
Prudential CEO Tidjane Thiam was paid £11.8 million in 2014, up from a mere £8.7 million in 2013. In 2010, he struggled by on just £5.3 million, so people might not find it surprising that he thinks things have got better under the Coalition Andy Harrison, the CEO of Whitbread, which owns the Costa Coffee chain amongst other restaurant brands, was paid £6.3 million, over 400 times as much as his average employee. Again, CEO pay at Whitbread has increased from just £2.6 million in 2010
Looks like Labour has produced it`s own letter of 100 signatories to be published in the Guardian.
Face it mate. You are at all out war with business. Business that employs untold millions and pays untold billions in taxes.
Small business. Big business. The self employed. Anybody who isn;t a 'right on' wealthy guy like a senior civil servant or that f8ckwit actor who did your commercial.
Fatcat business leaders support the Tories. Well knock me down with a feather.
Pretty much all voters take self-interest into account when voting, to a greater or lesser extent.
So what?
The more useful question political parties might ask themselves is why a portion of the electorate don't support them, whether this is or could be a problem and what they might do about it.
Businessmen may well be fat cats (and I tend to think that too many senior business leaders have concentrated rather more on enriching themselves than has been good for their companies) but business earns the money which allows us to spend money on all sorts of essential (and non-essential) public goodies.
If they - or some of them - think that Labour may not be good for business it's worth listening to why they're saying that and dealing with the argument.
Only a stupid party or person refuses to listen to the message because they don't like the person saying it.
Its possibly an effective leaflet. If I lived in Sheffield Hallam I'd be sorely tempted to tactically vote for Clegg. Far rather Clegg than a Labour MP.
EDIT: I do find it a bit dishonest though to print a leaflet in another parties colours.
"Not a character assassination at all unless you think that arranging your affairs legally to minimise the tax you pay is somehow a bad thing."
Then what has the tax affairs of his girlfriend got to do with anything. Are we so old fashioned that we think a woman cant deal with her own affairs without a man taking responsibility?
What I don't need or care for is a lot of Labour luvvies pretending that they are morally superior to me because they support Labour and I don't.
Well put. It's just bloody irritating.
And to forestall argument, yes that would apply to Tories pretending they are morally superior to me because they support the Tories and I don't, which does happen, although my feeling is that for the lazy type of attachs while Labour fall back on the condescending implication that they are inherently more decent and moral than the Tories, the Tories fall back more often on the implication only fools vote for someone other than them.
This only applies to the very laziest of attacks mind you, the basest of tactics.
Agreed. There are decent people across the political spectrum and this lazy assumption that your political opponent must be a fool or a knave is odious.
Since it's nearly Easter, it might be worth pointing out that Jesus described such people very well when he pointed to the Pharisees, ostentatiously displaying their religiosity to all and sundry. He had something to say about rich men as well.
That's not how David Cameron would describe Easter... Getting stick from the comments section after his wishy washy Easter message (attempt to win votes)
At least Clegg and Mikiband are honest that they are atheists... As with Europe Cameron shifts and slides and tries to be all things to everyone without meaning anything
Cameron seems to know as much about Christianity as I do about quantum physics. He needs to retune that radio. Or get a proper catechism.
Just seen the LD PEB. The final message isn't a bad one (though for their sakes I fear its appeal is limited, as people seem to not like the centre option as much as they say they do), but it feels like it takes far too long to even start to make its point. It seems like these things need to start with more of a bang to grab your attention somehow, anyhow, and then get into the substance, rather than trying to put together a coherent short film. Honestly, the most effective youtube pre-roll ad I can recall flat out began with an angry voice telling me not to hit the skip button. It worked.
BBC1 6pm News - repeat of yesterday - 10 minute report 100% on Con + Lab - followed by Landale doing a sum-up - 100% on Con + Lab.
Then presenter says round-up of other election news - 10 seconds on Clegg (without him speaking), 10 seconds on UKIP (without any UKIPer speaking), 10 seconds on Samantha Cameron(!)
This pattern appears to be getting firmly established. If it carries on I can see Con + Lab getting 73% combined - ie 39/34, 38/35 or 37/36 - in whichever order you prefer.
LD, UKIP and Green are not going to have a chance - LD 9, UKIP 8, Green 4 would be my best guess.
Agree the BBC has clearly decided on a two horse race approach.
Yes - I said on here a few days ago this was going to happen.
When there were 3 major parties they had room to include the LDs in reports. But with four that's just too many to fit in - so they just concentrate on the big 2.
Result - making UKIP a major party has had a catastrophic effect on the LDs - and isn't helping UKIP that much.
Tomorrow's debate is now vital as it is the ONLY chance of anyone other than Con/Lab getting any momentum.
"Not a character assassination at all unless you think that arranging your affairs legally to minimise the tax you pay is somehow a bad thing."
Then what has the tax affairs of his girlfriend got to do with anything. Are we so old fashioned that we think a woman cant deal with her own affairs without a man taking responsibility?
What I don't need or care for is a lot of Labour luvvies pretending that they are morally superior to me because they support Labour and I don't.
Well put. It's just bloody irritating.
And to forestall argument, yes that would apply to Tories pretending they are morally superior to me because they support the Tories and I don't, which does happen, although my feeling is that for the lazy type of attachs while Labour fall back on the condescending implication that they are inherently more decent and moral than the Tories, the Tories fall back more often on the implication only fools vote for someone other than them.
This only applies to the very laziest of attacks mind you, the basest of tactics.
Agreed. There are decent people across the political spectrum and this lazy assumption that your political opponent must be a fool or a knave is odious.
Since it's nearly Easter, it might be worth pointing out that Jesus described such people very well when he pointed to the Pharisees, ostentatiously displaying their religiosity to all and sundry. He had something to say about rich men as well.
That's not how David Cameron would describe Easter... Getting stick from the comments section after his wishy washy Easter message (attempt to win votes)
At least Clegg and Mikiband are honest that they are atheists... As with Europe Cameron shifts and slides and tries to be all things to everyone without meaning anything
Cameron seems to know as much about Christianity as I do about quantum physics. He needs to retune that radio. Or get a proper catechism.
Jobbing actors are unlikely to be "employees" as such, so, like painters and decorators, management consultants, car valeters, freelance writers and window cleaners, it wouldn't seem strange that actors might create a company and handle their fees through that.
I assume his company is paying its fair share of corporation tax and VAT, that he's not putting personal expenses through the books, and that he's paying tax on any dividends that take him into the 40%/45% brackets. What more should this actor/company director do?
This faux outrage is so ...err... faux?
Having a company is here nor there. Doesn't show anything as you say.
The question is, is he making full use of the tax efficient possibilities of the unique position he is in. Most in the media do. Not being on PAYE, getting income from a wide variety of sources from around the world and the ability to do deals to be paid in all sorts of ways beyond simply £x for a y job opens up a huge number of ways to make sure your money is paid in the most tax efficient way.
Nothing wrong with that, any sensible person would, unless you are shouting from the rooftops about how it is morally wrong. Simply finding out that he has a service company, which he is director of doesn't tell us that.
"Not a character assassination at all unless you think that arranging your affairs legally to minimise the tax you pay is somehow a bad thing."
Then what has the tax affairs of his girlfriend got to do with anything. Are we so old fashioned that we think a woman cant deal with her own affairs without a man taking responsibility?
What I don't need or care for is a lot of Labour luvvies pretending that they are morally superior to me because they support Labour and I don't.
Well put. It's just bloody irritating.
And to forestall argument, yes that would apply to Tories pretending they are morally superior to me because they support the Tories and I don't, which does happen, although my feeling is that for the lazy type of attachs while Labour fall back on the condescending implication that they are inherently more decent and moral than the Tories, the Tories fall back more often on the implication only fools vote for someone other than them.
This only applies to the very laziest of attacks mind you, the basest of tactics.
Agreed. There are decent people across the political spectrum and this lazy assumption that your political opponent must be a fool or a knave is odious.
Since it's nearly Easter, it might be worth pointing out that Jesus described such people very well when he pointed to the Pharisees, ostentatiously displaying their religiosity to all and sundry. He had something to say about rich men as well.
That's not how David Cameron would describe Easter... Getting stick from the comments section after his wishy washy Easter message (attempt to win votes)
At least Clegg and Mikiband are honest that they are atheists... As with Europe Cameron shifts and slides and tries to be all things to everyone without meaning anything
Cameron seems to know as much about Christianity as I do about quantum physics. He needs to retune that radio. Or get a proper catechism.
Its possibly an effective leaflet. If I lived in Sheffield Hallam I'd be sorely tempted to tactically vote for Clegg. Far rather Clegg than a Labour MP.
EDIT: I do find it a bit dishonest though to print a leaflet in another parties colours.
BBC1 6pm News - repeat of yesterday - 10 minute report 100% on Con + Lab - followed by Landale doing a sum-up - 100% on Con + Lab.
Then presenter says round-up of other election news - 10 seconds on Clegg (without him speaking), 10 seconds on UKIP (without any UKIPer speaking), 10 seconds on Samantha Cameron(!)
This pattern appears to be getting firmly established. If it carries on I can see Con + Lab getting 73% combined - ie 39/34, 38/35 or 37/36 - in whichever order you prefer.
LD, UKIP and Green are not going to have a chance - LD 9, UKIP 8, Green 4 would be my best guess.
What can OFCOM do if UKIP and the Lib Dems are not treated fairly as major parties?
It may not be the end of the world as a lot of people are sick of the GE and it is still over a month away.
UKIP are not a Major Party in the way the Liberals, Labour and Tories are.
I suggest you read both the OFCOM ruling and the OFCOM rules as you seem to be wrong about both.
I thought OFCOM declared UKIP a major party for these elections back in January?
If they - or some of them - think that Labour may not be good for business it's worth listening to why they're saying that and dealing with the argument.
But again, the question is whether these people honestly think Labour are bad for business as a whole, or if they think it will just be bad for those businessmen as individuals and how much money they can undeservedly cream off other people. I don't think voters will have the kind of panglossian view of fat-cats' intentions/honesty that the PBTories do.
BBC1 6pm News - repeat of yesterday - 10 minute report 100% on Con + Lab - followed by Landale doing a sum-up - 100% on Con + Lab.
Then presenter says round-up of other election news - 10 seconds on Clegg (without him speaking), 10 seconds on UKIP (without any UKIPer speaking), 10 seconds on Samantha Cameron(!)
This pattern appears to be getting firmly established. If it carries on I can see Con + Lab getting 73% combined - ie 39/34, 38/35 or 37/36 - in whichever order you prefer.
LD, UKIP and Green are not going to have a chance - LD 9, UKIP 8, Green 4 would be my best guess.
Agree the BBC has clearly decided on a two horse race approach.
Yes - I said on here a few days ago this was going to happen.
When there were 3 major parties they had room to include the LDs in reports. But with four that's just too many to fit in - so they just concentrate on the big 2.
Result - making UKIP a major party has had a catastrophic effect on the LDs - and isn't helping UKIP that much.
Tomorrow's debate is now vital as it is the ONLY chance of anyone other than Con/Lab getting any momentum.
This is poor work from the broadcasters, is there noone with stopwatches etc at LDs/UKIP ?
On way home I heard vox pop on Lab-Tory seat Carlisle...
Labour, Conservative mentioned and SNP - not a sniff of UKIP or LD.
BBC1 6pm News - repeat of yesterday - 10 minute report 100% on Con + Lab - followed by Landale doing a sum-up - 100% on Con + Lab.
Then presenter says round-up of other election news - 10 seconds on Clegg (without him speaking), 10 seconds on UKIP (without any UKIPer speaking), 10 seconds on Samantha Cameron(!)
This pattern appears to be getting firmly established. If it carries on I can see Con + Lab getting 73% combined - ie 39/34, 38/35 or 37/36 - in whichever order you prefer.
LD, UKIP and Green are not going to have a chance - LD 9, UKIP 8, Green 4 would be my best guess.
Agree the BBC has clearly decided on a two horse race approach.
Yes - I said on here a few days ago this was going to happen.
When there were 3 major parties they could include the LDs in reports. But with four that's just too many to fit in - so they just concentrate on the big 2.
Result - making UKIP a major party has had a catastrophic effect on the LDs - and isn't helping UKIP that much.
Tomorrow's debate is now vital as it is the ONLY chance of anyone other than Con/Lab getting any momentum.
What is it with Kippers. Is there really that level of stupidity?
UKIP do not have the same status with OFCOM as the Tories, Liberals and Labour. The Liberals do not have the same status as the Tories and Labour.
UKIPs status is as a third tier major party, the same as the SNP, Plaid Cymru and the NI parties.
The OFCOM rules require broadcasters to balance the coverage the Tories and Labour get ONLY. They can show other major parties up to this level but are not required to with the exception of geographicly limited broadcasts. So in Scotland they must give the SNP the same coverage as Labour and the Tories.
But in UK wide or GB wide broadcasting there is absolutely ZERO requirement for them to give UKIP the same coverage as the Tories and Labour.
Jobbing actors are unlikely to be "employees" as such, so, like painters and decorators, management consultants, car valeters, freelance writers and window cleaners, it wouldn't seem strange that actors might create a company and handle their fees through that.
I assume his company is paying its fair share of corporation tax and VAT, that he's not putting personal expenses through the books, and that he's paying tax on any dividends that take him into the 40%/45% brackets. What more should this actor/company director do?
This faux outrage is so ...err... faux?
There are plenty of occupations where people are not employees but don't create companies through whom they channel their earnings.
No reason why actors can't do the same as barristers, for instance. The main reason for creating a company is that it is a tax efficient way of managing one's financial affairs and any competent accountant will suggest it.
But they have a choice. Just because they can doesn't mean they have to.
And if you start lecturing others about your values, expect others to judge you by your expressed values. That's all.
Among the 103 signatories of the letter, published on the front page of the Daily Telegraph this morning, are four Conservative members of the House of Lords – all ennobled by David Cameron.
The Prime Minister also doled out 18 MBEs, OBEs, CBEs and knighthoods to signatories of the letter over the last parliament.
A total of 32 of the signatories are Conservative donors, having donated a total of £9m to the party when family and company donations are taken into account.
Nine of those who signed the letter had given at least six-figure sums, with the smallest donation still well over a thousand pounds.
But most signatories (pun?) are not established supporters or donors.
So 26 percent of Labour MP,s employ people on zero hours contracts...well I never. .Should one of them tell EdM
You forget they will be GOOD zero hour contracts....like there is good tax avoidance (if you donate to Labour) and bad tax avoidance (if you are a Tory donor)...and evil media empires, NI, and ones we don't mention, The Mirror Group...
Bit like second kitchens you do use and second kitchens you don't use.
BBC1 6pm News - repeat of yesterday - 10 minute report 100% on Con + Lab - followed by Landale doing a sum-up - 100% on Con + Lab.
Then presenter says round-up of other election news - 10 seconds on Clegg (without him speaking), 10 seconds on UKIP (without any UKIPer speaking), 10 seconds on Samantha Cameron(!)
This pattern appears to be getting firmly established. If it carries on I can see Con + Lab getting 73% combined - ie 39/34, 38/35 or 37/36 - in whichever order you prefer.
LD, UKIP and Green are not going to have a chance - LD 9, UKIP 8, Green 4 would be my best guess.
What can OFCOM do if UKIP and the Lib Dems are not treated fairly as major parties?
It may not be the end of the world as a lot of people are sick of the GE and it is still over a month away.
UKIP are not a Major Party in the way the Liberals, Labour and Tories are.
I suggest you read both the OFCOM ruling and the OFCOM rules as you seem to be wrong about both.
I thought OFCOM declared UKIP a major party for these elections back in January?
UKIP are only a major party in England & Wales
The Tories, Lib Dems and Labour are the only GB wide major parties.
The SNP and Plaid are major parties in their respective countries
"Not a character assassination at all unless you think that arranging your affairs legally to minimise the tax you pay is somehow a bad thing."
Then what has the tax affairs of his girlfriend got to do with anything. Are we so old fashioned that we think a woman cant deal with her own affairs without a man taking responsibility?
What I don't need or care for is a lot of Labour luvvies pretending that they are morally superior to me because they support Labour and I don't.
This only applies to the very laziest of attacks mind you, the basest of tactics.
Agreed. There are decent people across the political spectrum and this lazy assumption that your political opponent must be a fool or a knave is odious.
Since it's nearly Easter, it might be worth pointing out that Jesus described such people very well when he pointed to the Pharisees, ostentatiously displaying their religiosity to all and sundry. He had something to say about rich men as well.
At least Clegg and Mikiband are honest that they are atheists... As with Europe Cameron shifts and slides and tries to be all things to everyone without meaning anything
Cameron seems to know as much about Christianity as I do about quantum physics. He needs to retune that radio. Or get a proper catechism.
As a member of the liberal metrosexual metropolitan elite, I'll have you know I have a man bag.
When is someone within the Conservative party going to stand up and say that gay marriage is not a metropolitan issue. Middle England (where many homosexuals live) has come around to the idea. The polls are clear on that.
BBC1 6pm News - repeat of yesterday - 10 minute report 100% on Con + Lab - followed by Landale doing a sum-up - 100% on Con + Lab.
Then presenter says round-up of other election news - 10 seconds on Clegg (without him speaking), 10 seconds on UKIP (without any UKIPer speaking), 10 seconds on Samantha Cameron(!)
This pattern appears to be getting firmly established. If it carries on I can see Con + Lab getting 73% combined - ie 39/34, 38/35 or 37/36 - in whichever order you prefer.
LD, UKIP and Green are not going to have a chance - LD 9, UKIP 8, Green 4 would be my best guess.
What can OFCOM do if UKIP and the Lib Dems are not treated fairly as major parties?
It may not be the end of the world as a lot of people are sick of the GE and it is still over a month away.
UKIP are not a Major Party in the way the Liberals, Labour and Tories are.
I suggest you read both the OFCOM ruling and the OFCOM rules as you seem to be wrong about both.
I thought OFCOM declared UKIP a major party for these elections back in January?
OFCOM classified UKIP as a major party in England and in Wales. The big three are classified as major parties in Great Britain. They also specify a specific requirement for balance for Labour and the Tories beyond that of any other party Major or minor.
"Not a character assassination at all unless you think that arranging your affairs legally to minimise the tax you pay is somehow a bad thing."
Then what has the tax affairs of his girlfriend got to do with anything. Are we so old fashioned that we think a woman cant deal with her own affairs without a man taking responsibility?
What I don't need or care for is a lot of Labour luvvies pretending that they are morally superior to me because they support Labour and I don't.
Well put. It's just bloody irritating.
And to forestall argument, yes that would apply to Tories pretending they are morally superior to me because they support the Tories and I don't, which does happen, although my feeling is that for the lazy type of attachs while Labour fall back on the condescending implication that they are inherently more decent and moral than the Tories, the Tories fall back more often on the implication only fools vote for someone other than them.
This only applies to the very laziest of attacks mind you, the basest of tactics.
Agreed. There are decent people across the political spectrum and this lazy assumption that your political opponent must be a fool or a knave is odious.
Since it's nearly Easter, it might be worth pointing out that Jesus described such people very well when he pointed to the Pharisees, ostentatiously displaying their religiosity to all and sundry. He had something to say about rich men as well.
The view that one's political opponents are either very stupid, or very evil, and certainly have base motives, is widespread.
Jobbing actors are unlikely to be "employees" as such, so, like painters and decorators, management consultants, car valeters, freelance writers and window cleaners, it wouldn't seem strange that actors might create a company and handle their fees through that.
I assume his company is paying its fair share of corporation tax and VAT, that he's not putting personal expenses through the books, and that he's paying tax on any dividends that take him into the 40%/45% brackets. What more should this actor/company director do?
This faux outrage is so ...err... faux?
I don't care what tax arrangements people have so long as they are legal. If they are ridiculous, those who write our laws should so something about it, and if they cannot or will not that's their fault, not the person who takes advantage and does something legal.
That would not however prevent someone from being outraged at someone else using that legal advantage, if they or the party they support proclaims such activities to be immoral. I am not interested enough to delve into the detail of this case and seeing how ridiculous the arrangements are, but that someone else might find those legal methods to be out of sync with the proclaimed values and moral superiority (if indeed that is the case) would not make the outrage faux necessarily, it could just be outrage at hypocrisy not at the actual activity in question itself exactly.
"Not a character assassination at all unless you think that arranging your affairs legally to minimise the tax you pay is somehow a bad thing."
Then what has the tax affairs of his girlfriend got to do with anything. Are we so old fashioned that we think a woman cant deal with her own affairs without a man taking responsibility?
What I don't need or care for is a lot of Labour luvvies pretending that they are morally superior to me because they support Labour and I don't.
Well put. It's just bloody irritating.
And to forestall argument, yes that would apply to Tories pretending they are morally superior to me because they support the Tories and I don't, which does happen, although my feeling is that for the lazy type of attachs while Labour fall back on the condescending implication that they are inherently more decent and moral than the Tories, the Tories fall back more often on the implication only fools vote for someone other than them.
This only applies to the very laziest of attacks mind you, the basest of tactics.
Agreed. There are decent people across the political spectrum and this lazy assumption that your political opponent must be a fool or a knave is odious.
Since it's nearly Easter, it might be worth pointing out that Jesus described such people very well when he pointed to the Pharisees, ostentatiously displaying their religiosity to all and sundry. He had something to say about rich men as well.
The view that one's political opponents are either very stupid, or very evil, and certainly have base motives, is widespread.
True. It's a bit catch-22. I think that sort of view is pretty stupid and unfair, but it is very very widespread, but I would also like to think that people in general are not generally stupid or that unfair, but both those views cannot be true and if I go with the former, I am being pretty condescending of the public at large myself. A bit of a conundrum.
BBC1 6pm News - repeat of yesterday - 10 minute report 100% on Con + Lab - followed by Landale doing a sum-up - 100% on Con + Lab.
Then presenter says round-up of other election news - 10 seconds on Clegg (without him speaking), 10 seconds on UKIP (without any UKIPer speaking), 10 seconds on Samantha Cameron(!)
This pattern appears to be getting firmly established. If it carries on I can see Con + Lab getting 73% combined - ie 39/34, 38/35 or 37/36 - in whichever order you prefer.
LD, UKIP and Green are not going to have a chance - LD 9, UKIP 8, Green 4 would be my best guess.
Agree the BBC has clearly decided on a two horse race approach.
Yes - I said on here a few days ago this was going to happen.
When there were 3 major parties they could include the LDs in reports. But with four that's just too many to fit in - so they just concentrate on the big 2.
Result - making UKIP a major party has had a catastrophic effect on the LDs - and isn't helping UKIP that much.
Tomorrow's debate is now vital as it is the ONLY chance of anyone other than Con/Lab getting any momentum.
What is it with Kippers. Is there really that level of stupidity?
UKIP do not have the same status with OFCOM as the Tories, Liberals and Labour. The Liberals do not have the same status as the Tories and Labour.
UKIPs status is as a third tier major party, the same as the SNP, Plaid Cymru and the NI parties.
The OFCOM rules require broadcasters to balance the coverage the Tories and Labour get ONLY. They can show other major parties up to this level but are not required to with the exception of geographicly limited broadcasts. So in Scotland they must give the SNP the same coverage as Labour and the Tories.
But in UK wide or GB wide broadcasting there is absolutely ZERO requirement for them to give UKIP the same coverage as the Tories and Labour.
How would I know if Kippers were stupid - I'm not one.
Of course the BBC is acting entirely within the rules - that is blindingly obvious.
All I am observing is what is happening - and it is significantly different from 2010. The LDs have just got unlucky - nobody's fault, no suggestion the BBC (or anyone else) is doing anything wrong - that's just the way it's turned out.
If they - or some of them - think that Labour may not be good for business it's worth listening to why they're saying that and dealing with the argument.
But again, the question is whether these people honestly think Labour are bad for business as a whole, or if they think it will just be bad for those businessmen as individuals and how much money they can undeservedly cream off other people. I don't think voters will have the kind of panglossian view of fat-cats' intentions/honesty that the PBTories do.
Why not ask? Why not engage with the argument? None of that has been done. Instead all that's happened is that Labour supporters on here have pointed to the eye-watering salaries some of these people have been paid as if that's an answer.
It isn't.
It's like saying in response to Labour's proposals on zero hours contracts that Labour are funded by the unions as if that were an answer. And again it isn't. Labour have some good points on such contracts: the uncertainty, for one thing and the exploitative nature. Their proposed solution may not be sensible but they have a point which needs to be addressed.
Similarly, the businessmen may well have a point about Labour's attitude and approach to business, which is more than simply "I'm rich and I'm worried that I might have to pay more tax". Labour are simply refusing to deal with the argument and are simply responding in an ad hominem way. It's pathetic.
They don't even have the courage of their own convictions.
Edit: And I can assure you that I don't have a Panglossian approach to these businesses, not in my job.
BBC1 6pm News - repeat of yesterday - 10 minute report 100% on Con + Lab - followed by Landale doing a sum-up - 100% on Con + Lab.
Then presenter says round-up of other election news - 10 seconds on Clegg (without him speaking), 10 seconds on UKIP (without any UKIPer speaking), 10 seconds on Samantha Cameron(!)
This pattern appears to be getting firmly established. If it carries on I can see Con + Lab getting 73% combined - ie 39/34, 38/35 or 37/36 - in whichever order you prefer.
LD, UKIP and Green are not going to have a chance - LD 9, UKIP 8, Green 4 would be my best guess.
Agree the BBC has clearly decided on a two horse race approach.
Yes - I said on here a few days ago this was going to happen.
When there were 3 major parties they could include the LDs in reports. But with four that's just too many to fit in - so they just concentrate on the big 2.
Result - making UKIP a major party has had a catastrophic effect on the LDs - and isn't helping UKIP that much.
Tomorrow's debate is now vital as it is the ONLY chance of anyone other than Con/Lab getting any momentum.
What is it with Kippers. Is there really that level of stupidity?
UKIP do not have the same status with OFCOM as the Tories, Liberals and Labour. The Liberals do not have the same status as the Tories and Labour.
UKIPs status is as a third tier major party, the same as the SNP, Plaid Cymru and the NI parties.
The OFCOM rules require broadcasters to balance the coverage the Tories and Labour get ONLY. They can show other major parties up to this level but are not required to with the exception of geographicly limited broadcasts. So in Scotland they must give the SNP the same coverage as Labour and the Tories.
But in UK wide or GB wide broadcasting there is absolutely ZERO requirement for them to give UKIP the same coverage as the Tories and Labour.
How would I know if Kippers were stupid - I'm not one.
Of course the BBC is acting entirely within the rules - that is blindingly obvious.
BBC1 6pm News - repeat of yesterday - 10 minute report 100% on Con + Lab - followed by Landale doing a sum-up - 100% on Con + Lab.
Then presenter says round-up of other election news - 10 seconds on Clegg (without him speaking), 10 seconds on UKIP (without any UKIPer speaking), 10 seconds on Samantha Cameron(!)
This pattern appears to be getting firmly established. If it carries on I can see Con + Lab getting 73% combined - ie 39/34, 38/35 or 37/36 - in whichever order you prefer.
LD, UKIP and Green are not going to have a chance - LD 9, UKIP 8, Green 4 would be my best guess.
Agree the BBC has clearly decided on a two horse race approach.
Yes - I said on here a few days ago this was going to happen.
When there were 3 major parties they could include the LDs in reports. But with four that's just too many to fit in - so they just concentrate on the big 2.
Result - making UKIP a major party has had a catastrophic effect on the LDs - and isn't helping UKIP that much.
Tomorrow's debate is now vital as it is the ONLY chance of anyone other than Con/Lab getting any momentum.
What is it with Kippers. Is there really that level of stupidity?
UKIP do not have the same status with OFCOM as the Tories, Liberals and Labour. The Liberals do not have the same status as the Tories and Labour.
UKIPs status is as a third tier major party, the same as the SNP, Plaid Cymru and the NI parties.
The OFCOM rules require broadcasters to balance the coverage the Tories and Labour get ONLY. They can show other major parties up to this level but are not required to with the exception of geographicly limited broadcasts. So in Scotland they must give the SNP the same coverage as Labour and the Tories.
But in UK wide or GB wide broadcasting there is absolutely ZERO requirement for them to give UKIP the same coverage as the Tories and Labour.
How would I know if Kippers were stupid - I'm not one.
Of course the BBC is acting entirely within the rules - that is blindingly obvious.
All I am observing is what is happening.
Not exactly sure what beef Dair has with you. I'm glad someone is keeping track of this, as it will be interesting how it plays out.
Jobbing actors are unlikely to be "employees" as such, so, like painters and decorators, management consultants, car valeters, freelance writers and window cleaners, it wouldn't seem strange that actors might create a company and handle their fees through that.
I assume his company is paying its fair share of corporation tax and VAT, that he's not putting personal expenses through the books, and that he's paying tax on any dividends that take him into the 40%/45% brackets. What more should this actor/company director do?
This faux outrage is so ...err... faux?
And if you start lecturing others about your values, expect others to judge you by your expressed values. That's all.
I feel like I should really retire trying to make relevant points and just stick to hit or miss quips, as I end up just being embarrassed that someone else makes the point I was trying to make far better and in about 1/5 of the words I used to boot.
BBC1 6pm News - repeat of yesterday - 10 minute report 100% on Con + Lab - followed by Landale doing a sum-up - 100% on Con + Lab.
Then presenter says round-up of other election news - 10 seconds on Clegg (without him speaking), 10 seconds on UKIP (without any UKIPer speaking), 10 seconds on Samantha Cameron(!)
This pattern appears to be getting firmly established. If it carries on I can see Con + Lab getting 73% combined - ie 39/34, 38/35 or 37/36 - in whichever order you prefer.
LD, UKIP and Green are not going to have a chance - LD 9, UKIP 8, Green 4 would be my best guess.
Agree the BBC has clearly decided on a two horse race approach.
Yes - I said on here a few days ago this was going to happen.
When there were 3 major parties they could include the LDs in reports. But with four that's just too many to fit in - so they just concentrate on the big 2.
Result - making UKIP a major party has had a catastrophic effect on the LDs - and isn't helping UKIP that much.
Tomorrow's debate is now vital as it is the ONLY chance of anyone other than Con/Lab getting any momentum.
What is it with Kippers. Is there really that level of stupidity?
UKIP do not have the same status with OFCOM as the Tories, Liberals and Labour. The Liberals do not have the same status as the Tories and Labour.
UKIPs status is as a third tier major party, the same as the SNP, Plaid Cymru and the NI parties.
The OFCOM rules require broadcasters to balance the coverage the Tories and Labour get ONLY. They can show other major parties up to this level but are not required to with the exception of geographicly limited broadcasts. So in Scotland they must give the SNP the same coverage as Labour and the Tories.
But in UK wide or GB wide broadcasting there is absolutely ZERO requirement for them to give UKIP the same coverage as the Tories and Labour.
How would I know if Kippers were stupid - I'm not one.
Of course the BBC is acting entirely within the rules - that is blindingly obvious.
"Not a character assassination at all unless you think that arranging your affairs legally to minimise the tax you pay is somehow a bad thing."
Then what has the tax affairs of his girlfriend got to do with anything. Are we so old fashioned that we think a woman cant deal with her own affairs without a man taking responsibility?
What I don't need or care for is a lot of Labour luvvies pretending that they are morally superior to me because they support Labour and I don't.
Well put. It's just bloody irritating.
And to forestall argument, yes that would apply to Tories pretending they are morally superior to me because they support the Tories and I don't, which does happen, although my feeling is that for the lazy type of attachs while Labour fall back on the condescending implication that they are inherently more decent and moral than the Tories, the Tories fall back more often on the implication only fools vote for someone other than them.
This only applies to the very laziest of attacks mind you, the basest of tactics.
Agreed. There are decent people across the political spectrum and this lazy assumption that your political opponent must be a fool or a knave is odious.
Since it's nearly Easter, it might be worth pointing out that Jesus described such people very well when he pointed to the Pharisees, ostentatiously displaying their religiosity to all and sundry. He had something to say about rich men as well.
The view that one's political opponents are either very stupid, or very evil, and certainly have base motives, is widespread.
I'd always try and avoid using the word evil but I actually don't have a problem with believing many people on the other side are less than pleasant and a bit stupid. The delusion to me is not realising that the same thing applies to a fair number on your own side too.
I do think this is an issue for Labour, particularly amongst their activist base who are full of the moral crusade. Many of their grassroots voters don't have an idealistic bone in their bodies, they simply vote Labour because they think it's in their own selfish interests.
Jobbing actors are unlikely to be "employees" as such, so, like painters and decorators, management consultants, car valeters, freelance writers and window cleaners, it wouldn't seem strange that actors might create a company and handle their fees through that.
I assume his company is paying its fair share of corporation tax and VAT, that he's not putting personal expenses through the books, and that he's paying tax on any dividends that take him into the 40%/45% brackets. What more should this actor/company director do?
This faux outrage is so ...err... faux?
There are plenty of occupations where people are not employees but don't create companies through whom they channel their earnings.
No reason why actors can't do the same as barristers, for instance. The main reason for creating a company is that it is a tax efficient way of managing one's financial affairs and any competent accountant will suggest it.
But they have a choice. Just because they can doesn't mean they have to.
And if you start lecturing others about your values, expect others to judge you by your expressed values. That's all.
Wigs and projection apart, barristers aren't like actors. There is, for example, no such thing as an "Actor Only Entity". I don't think it is unreasonable for an actor, who is essentially a freelance worker, to set up a company. There aren't that many advantages, NI apart, and I suspect a good actor is "earning" a lot more than £815 pw or whatever the upper limit for NI is.
It sticks in my throat when rich, privileged people criticise other people for being rich and priveliged. It's hypocrisy. But this "he channels his fees through a company" thing is quite a different matter.
BBC1 6pm News - repeat of yesterday - 10 minute report 100% on Con + Lab - followed by Landale doing a sum-up - 100% on Con + Lab.
Then presenter says round-up of other election news - 10 seconds on Clegg (without him speaking), 10 seconds on UKIP (without any UKIPer speaking), 10 seconds on Samantha Cameron(!)
This pattern appears to be getting firmly established. If it carries on I can see Con + Lab getting 73% combined - ie 39/34, 38/35 or 37/36 - in whichever order you prefer.
LD, UKIP and Green are not going to have a chance - LD 9, UKIP 8, Green 4 would be my best guess.
Agree the BBC has clearly decided on a two horse race approach.
Yes - I said on here a few days ago this was going to happen.
When there were 3 major parties they could include the LDs in reports. But with four that's just too many to fit in - so they just concentrate on the big 2.
Result - making UKIP a major party has had a catastrophic effect on the LDs - and isn't helping UKIP that much.
Tomorrow's debate is now vital as it is the ONLY chance of anyone other than Con/Lab getting any momentum.
What is it with Kippers. Is there really that level of stupidity?
UKIP do not have the same status with OFCOM as the Tories, Liberals and Labour. The Liberals do not have the same status as the Tories and Labour.
UKIPs status is as a third tier major party, the same as the SNP, Plaid Cymru and the NI parties.
The OFCOM rules require broadcasters to balance the coverage the Tories and Labour get ONLY. They can show other major parties up to this level but are not required to with the exception of geographicly limited broadcasts. So in Scotland they must give the SNP the same coverage as Labour and the Tories.
But in UK wide or GB wide broadcasting there is absolutely ZERO requirement for them to give UKIP the same coverage as the Tories and Labour.
How would I know if Kippers were stupid - I'm not one.
Of course the BBC is acting entirely within the rules - that is blindingly obvious.
All I am observing is what is happening.
Not exactly sure what beef Dair has with you. I'm glad someone is keeping track of this, as it will be interesting how it plays out.
So many posts on here are partisan that when someone (in this case me) observes that something isn't good for someone there will be other posters who assume the original poster is complaining / saying it is wrong / unfair.
In this case - as I would have thought was blindingly obvious - that was not the case.
As regular readers will know I am actually voting Con - so (again obviously!) I am personally delighted with the BBC's overwhelming focus on Con/Lab.
Jobbing actors are unlikely to be "employees" as such, so, like painters and decorators, management consultants, car valeters, freelance writers and window cleaners, it wouldn't seem strange that actors might create a company and handle their fees through that.
I assume his company is paying its fair share of corporation tax and VAT, that he's not putting personal expenses through the books, and that he's paying tax on any dividends that take him into the 40%/45% brackets. What more should this actor/company director do?
This faux outrage is so ...err... faux?
There are plenty of occupations where people are not employees but don't create companies through whom they channel their earnings.
No reason why actors can't do the same as barristers, for instance. The main reason for creating a company is that it is a tax efficient way of managing one's financial affairs and any competent accountant will suggest it.
But they have a choice. Just because they can doesn't mean they have to.
And if you start lecturing others about your values, expect others to judge you by your expressed values. That's all.
Wigs and projection apart, barristers aren't like actors. There is, for example, no such thing as an "Actor Only Entity". I don't think it is unreasonable for an actor, who is essentially a freelance worker, to set up a company. There aren't that many advantages, NI apart, and I suspect a good actor is "earning" a lot more than £815 pw or whatever the upper limit for NI is.
It sticks in my throat when rich, privileged people criticise other people for being rich and priveliged. It's hypocrisy. But this "he channels his fees through a company" thing is quite a different matter.
There are loads of advantages to having a company if you are an actor, footballer, etc It is the perfectly logical thing to do, but to say there aren't many advantages to doing so is nonsense.
There is a very good reason why most of the media, footballer, high earning people not on PAYE decide to channel things via service companies. If there was little to no advantage, they wouldn't do it.
If they - or some of them - think that Labour may not be good for business it's worth listening to why they're saying that and dealing with the argument.
But again, the question is whether these people honestly think Labour are bad for business as a whole, or if they think it will just be bad for those businessmen as individuals and how much money they can undeservedly cream off other people. I don't think voters will have the kind of panglossian view of fat-cats' intentions/honesty that the PBTories do.
I suspect many in business ( as I am and do ) will think overall that the more Govt of any stripe buggers off and leaves us alone to get on with the business the better. Not always, and there are limits of course, but generally.
In that sense too I suspect that many in business do genuinely believe that Milliband would be both bad for them personally and for their business and business in general. I certainly do given his track record with his interventions as LOTO.
Now all that said the vast majority outside their private circles will probably not shout it from the rooftops or sign letters in papers, as they will not want to stick their head above the parapet and draw attention to their area of business given there is a high probability that Milliband will be running the show in a few weeks propped up ( for a while ) by his Scottish "allies".
BBC1 6pm News - repeat of yesterday - 10 minute report 100% on Con + Lab - followed by Landale doing a sum-up - 100% on Con + Lab.
Then presenter says round-up of other election news - 10 seconds on Clegg (without him speaking), 10 seconds on UKIP (without any UKIPer speaking), 10 seconds on Samantha Cameron(!)
This pattern appears to be getting firmly established. If it carries on I can see Con + Lab getting 73% combined - ie 39/34, 38/35 or 37/36 - in whichever order you prefer.
LD, UKIP and Green are not going to have a chance - LD 9, UKIP 8, Green 4 would be my best guess.
Agree the BBC has clearly decided on a two horse race approach.
Yes - I said on here a few days ago this was going to happen.
When there were 3 major parties they could include the LDs in reports. But with four that's just too many to fit in - so they just concentrate on the big 2.
Result - making UKIP a major party has had a catastrophic effect on the LDs - and isn't helping UKIP that much.
Tomorrow's debate is now vital as it is the ONLY chance of anyone other than Con/Lab getting any momentum.
What is it with Kippers. Is there really that level of stupidity?
UKIP do not have the same status with OFCOM as the Tories, Liberals and Labour. The Liberals do not have the same status as the Tories and Labour.
UKIPs status is as a third tier major party, the same as the SNP, Plaid Cymru and the NI parties.
The OFCOM rules require broadcasters to balance the coverage the Tories and Labour get ONLY. They can show other major parties up to this level but are not required to with the exception of geographicly limited broadcasts. So in Scotland they must give the SNP the same coverage as Labour and the Tories.
But in UK wide or GB wide broadcasting there is absolutely ZERO requirement for them to give UKIP the same coverage as the Tories and Labour.
How would I know if Kippers were stupid - I'm not one.
Of course the BBC is acting entirely within the rules - that is blindingly obvious.
All I am observing is what is happening.
Kippers do have the lowest IQ though don't they?
How's the wife. Hope she is on the mend!
Tis my Mum not Mrs BJ who has the broken collar bone dislocated shoulder and stitches in her head.
Think I will be looking after her for a few weeks yet but on the mend thanks,
Mrs BJ is already mended and by far the fittest in my house (she says)
I had a punt on the Lib Dems in St Austell and Newquay in February or early March, on the basis it was a three-horse race where a small shift to Ukip or Conservative would cancel out likely extra incumbency effects; I'm glad I was able to get out of it by backing the Tories with a certain bookmaker which shall remain nameless that offered preposterously good prices a few weeks ago.
I have an "academic" question. Does anyone remember what were considered the most unlikely victories in 2010? Wall et al. claim in the paper titled "What are the Odds?" that two candidates between 9/1 and 19/1 won seats, and nobody priced longer than 19/1. Does anyone know who those two winners were?
BBC1 6pm News - repeat of yesterday - 10 minute report 100% on Con + Lab - followed by Landale doing a sum-up - 100% on Con + Lab.
Then presenter says round-up of other election news - 10 seconds on Clegg (without him speaking), 10 seconds on UKIP (without any UKIPer speaking), 10 seconds on Samantha Cameron(!)
This pattern appears to be getting firmly established. If it carries on I can see Con + Lab getting 73% combined - ie 39/34, 38/35 or 37/36 - in whichever order you prefer.
LD, UKIP and Green are not going to have a chance - LD 9, UKIP 8, Green 4 would be my best guess.
Agree the BBC has clearly decided on a two horse race approach.
Yes - I said on here a few days ago this was going to happen.
When there were 3 major parties they could include the LDs in reports. But with four that's just too many to fit in - so they just concentrate on the big 2.
Result - making UKIP a major party has had a catastrophic effect on the LDs - and isn't helping UKIP that much.
Tomorrow's debate is now vital as it is the ONLY chance of anyone other than Con/Lab getting any momentum.
What is it with Kippers. Is there really that level of stupidity?
UKIP do not have the same status with OFCOM as the Tories, Liberals and Labour. The Liberals do not have the same status as the Tories and Labour.
UKIPs status is as a third tier major party, the same as the SNP, Plaid Cymru and the NI parties.
The OFCOM rules require broadcasters to balance the coverage the Tories and Labour get ONLY. They can show other major parties up to this level but are not required to with the exception of geographicly limited broadcasts. So in Scotland they must give the SNP the same coverage as Labour and the Tories.
But in UK wide or GB wide broadcasting there is absolutely ZERO requirement for them to give UKIP the same coverage as the Tories and Labour.
How would I know if Kippers were stupid - I'm not one.
Of course the BBC is acting entirely within the rules - that is blindingly obvious.
All I am observing is what is happening.
Kippers do have the lowest IQ though don't they?
How's the wife. Hope she is on the mend!
Tis my Mum not Mrs BJ who has the broken collar bone dislocated shoulder and stitches in her head.
Think I will be looking after her for a few weeks yet but on the mend thanks,
Mrs BJ is already mended and by far the fittest in my house (she says)
If they - or some of them - think that Labour may not be good for business it's worth listening to why they're saying that and dealing with the argument.
But again, the question is whether these people honestly think Labour are bad for business as a whole, or if they think it will just be bad for those businessmen as individuals and how much money they can undeservedly cream off other people. I don't think voters will have the kind of panglossian view of fat-cats' intentions/honesty that the PBTories do.
I suspect many in business ( as I am and do ) will think overall that the more Govt of any stripe buggers off and leaves us alone to get on with the business the better.
If they buggered off entirely and withdrew the massive employer subsidy that is employee tax credits a lot of businesses would be far from happy IMO
'They don't even have the courage of their own convictions."
Directors of public companies who choose to pay themselves £11,000,000 bonuses do not in my opinion have the right to pontificate to the 99.999999% of people who are considerably worse off than they are about why they think the government were right to their reduce their corporation tax bills from 28% to 20%. Well they can but then others can comment on their vulgarity without facing criticism from their cheer leaders on sites like this.
BBC1 6pm News - repeat of yesterday - 10 minute report 100% on Con + Lab - followed by Landale doing a sum-up - 100% on Con + Lab.
Then presenter says round-up of other election news - 10 seconds on Clegg (without him speaking), 10 seconds on UKIP (without any UKIPer speaking), 10 seconds on Samantha Cameron(!)
This pattern appears to be getting firmly established. If it carries on I can see Con + Lab getting 73% combined - ie 39/34, 38/35 or 37/36 - in whichever order you prefer.
LD, UKIP and Green are not going to have a chance - LD 9, UKIP 8, Green 4 would be my best guess.
Agree the BBC has clearly decided on a two horse race approach.
Yes - I said on here a few days ago this was going to happen.
When there were 3 major parties they could include the LDs in reports. But with four that's just too many to fit in - so they just concentrate on the big 2.
Result - making UKIP a major party has had a catastrophic effect on the LDs - and isn't helping UKIP that much.
Tomorrow's debate is now vital as it is the ONLY chance of anyone other than Con/Lab getting any momentum.
What is it with Kippers. Is there really that level of stupidity?
UKIP do not have the same status with OFCOM as the Tories, Liberals and Labour. The Liberals do not have the same status as the Tories and Labour.
UKIPs status is as a third tier major party, the same as the SNP, Plaid Cymru and the NI parties.
The OFCOM rules require broadcasters to balance the coverage the Tories and Labour get ONLY. They can show other major parties up to this level but are not required to with the exception of geographicly limited broadcasts. So in Scotland they must give the SNP the same coverage as Labour and the Tories.
But in UK wide or GB wide broadcasting there is absolutely ZERO requirement for them to give UKIP the same coverage as the Tories and Labour.
How would I know if Kippers were stupid - I'm not one.
Of course the BBC is acting entirely within the rules - that is blindingly obvious.
All I am observing is what is happening.
Kippers do have the lowest IQ though don't they?
How's the wife. Hope she is on the mend!
Tis my Mum not Mrs BJ who has the broken collar bone dislocated shoulder and stitches in her head.
Think I will be looking after her for a few weeks yet but on the mend thanks,
Mrs BJ is already mended and by far the fittest in my house (she says)
If they - or some of them - think that Labour may not be good for business it's worth listening to why they're saying that and dealing with the argument.
But again, the question is whether these people honestly think Labour are bad for business as a whole, or if they think it will just be bad for those businessmen as individuals and how much money they can undeservedly cream off other people. I don't think voters will have the kind of panglossian view of fat-cats' intentions/honesty that the PBTories do.
I suspect many in business ( as I am and do ) will think overall that the more Govt of any stripe buggers off and leaves us alone to get on with the business the better.
If they buggered off entirely and withdrew the massive employer subsidy that is employee tax credits a lot of businesses would be far from happy IMO
And if they buggered off and stopped funding the education system, which would mean there would be no-one with the skills for those businesses to employ to help them make the profits.
And if they buggered off and stopped funding the health system, which would mean all those businesses' employees would drop dead and not be able to help make profits.
Really? We seem to have jumped from 'No normal people are thinking about the GE yet' to 'A lot of people are sick of the GE already' very quickly.
It's not that much of a jump when the propaganda leaflets are coming through the door almost every day. I wonder at what point the leafleting generally becomes counter-productive? I feel I've received too many already.
If they - or some of them - think that Labour may not be good for business it's worth listening to why they're saying that and dealing with the argument.
But again, the question is whether these people honestly think Labour are bad for business as a whole, or if they think it will just be bad for those businessmen as individuals and how much money they can undeservedly cream off other people. I don't think voters will have the kind of panglossian view of fat-cats' intentions/honesty that the PBTories do.
I suspect many in business ( as I am and do ) will think overall that the more Govt of any stripe buggers off and leaves us alone to get on with the business the better.
If they buggered off entirely and withdrew the massive employer subsidy that is employee tax credits a lot of businesses would be far from happy IMO
Personally I wouldn't give a monkeys but there again we pay way more than a "living wage" especially for where we are.
BBC1 6pm News - repeat of yesterday - 10 minute report 100% on Con + Lab - followed by Landale doing a sum-up - 100% on Con + Lab.
Then presenter says round-up of other election news - 10 seconds on Clegg (without him speaking), 10 seconds on UKIP (without any UKIPer speaking), 10 seconds on Samantha Cameron(!)
This pattern appears to be getting firmly established. If it carries on I can see Con + Lab getting 73% combined - ie 39/34, 38/35 or 37/36 - in whichever order you prefer.
LD, UKIP and Green are not going to have a chance - LD 9, UKIP 8, Green 4 would be my best guess.
Agree the BBC has clearly decided on a two horse race approach.
Yes - I said on here a few days ago this was going to happen.
When there were 3 major parties they could include the LDs in reports. But with four that's just too many to fit in - so they just concentrate on the big 2.
Result - making UKIP a major party has had a catastrophic effect on the LDs - and isn't helping UKIP that much.
Tomorrow's debate is now vital as it is the ONLY chance of anyone other than Con/Lab getting any momentum.
What is it with Kippers. Is there really that level of stupidity?
UKIP do not have the same status with OFCOM as the Tories, Liberals and Labour. The Liberals do not have the same status as the Tories and Labour.
UKIPs status is as a third tier major party, the same as the SNP, Plaid Cymru and the NI parties.
The OFCOM rules require broadcasters to balance the coverage the Tories and Labour get ONLY. They can show other major parties up to this level but are not required to with the exception of geographicly limited broadcasts. So in Scotland they must give the SNP the same coverage as Labour and the Tories.
But in UK wide or GB wide broadcasting there is absolutely ZERO requirement for them to give UKIP the same coverage as the Tories and Labour.
How would I know if Kippers were stupid - I'm not one.
Of course the BBC is acting entirely within the rules - that is blindingly obvious.
All I am observing is what is happening.
Kippers do have the lowest IQ though don't they?
How's the wife. Hope she is on the mend!
Tis my Mum not Mrs BJ who has the broken collar bone dislocated shoulder and stitches in her head.
Think I will be looking after her for a few weeks yet but on the mend thanks,
Mrs BJ is already mended and by far the fittest in my house (she says)
If they - or some of them - think that Labour may not be good for business it's worth listening to why they're saying that and dealing with the argument.
But again, the question is whether these people honestly think Labour are bad for business as a whole, or if they think it will just be bad for those businessmen as individuals and how much money they can undeservedly cream off other people. I don't think voters will have the kind of panglossian view of fat-cats' intentions/honesty that the PBTories do.
I suspect many in business ( as I am and do ) will think overall that the more Govt of any stripe buggers off and leaves us alone to get on with the business the better.
If they buggered off entirely and withdrew the massive employer subsidy that is employee tax credits a lot of businesses would be far from happy IMO
Personally I wouldn't give a monkeys but there again we pay way more than a "living wage" especially for where we are.
Then I don't understand why you're scared of a Labour government? All they're saying is that you should pay your employees decently and not put them on exploitative zero-hour contracts; if you already do that then I don't understand how you would lose out.
Will the leader debate be on the Radio by the way, may well be driving down the M1 when it is on.
I'm sure it'll be on Radio 5 live. I listen to alot of radio, I mean alot, and sometimes you think it's a parallel universe when it comes to politics. Romney pummelled Obama in all three debates, I mean pummelled him. I was astonished when the plaudits started calling it for Obama in 2 and 3.
For tomorrow, I wouldn't be at all surprised if Labour and UKIP have formed a non aggression pact so they can both concentrate on the Tories. The left and right obviously have some history of these unholy alliances when there is some kind of mutual interest involved.
Really? We seem to have jumped from 'No normal people are thinking about the GE yet' to 'A lot of people are sick of the GE already' very quickly.
It's not that much of a jump when the propaganda leaflets are coming through the door almost every day. I wonder at what point the leafleting generally becomes counter-productive? I feel I've received too many already.
You must live in a marginal I presume? Last time if memory serves I received 4 leaflets total, 2 from the distant second place LDs, 1 each from the Tories and Labour.
In the recent Euros I received 2 from UKIP though, and I've even seen someone canvassing for them out and about, so I anticipate a bit more leaflet traffic this time around.
If they - or some of them - think that Labour may not be good for business it's worth listening to why they're saying that and dealing with the argument.
But again, the question is whether these people honestly think Labour are bad for business as a whole, or if they think it will just be bad for those businessmen as individuals and how much money they can undeservedly cream off other people. I don't think voters will have the kind of panglossian view of fat-cats' intentions/honesty that the PBTories do.
I suspect many in business ( as I am and do ) will think overall that the more Govt of any stripe buggers off and leaves us alone to get on with the business the better.
If they buggered off entirely and withdrew the massive employer subsidy that is employee tax credits a lot of businesses would be far from happy IMO
And if they buggered off and stopped funding the education system, which would mean there would be no-one with the skills for those businesses to employ to help them make the profits.
And if they buggered off and stopped funding the health system, which would mean all those businesses' employees would drop dead and not be able to help make profits.
I was not advocating a libertarian state with no tax funded services merely pointing out less is usually better in this case. The regulations, the form filling etc. but since you brought it up I could do with the State educating people with real world maths and literacy that is sorely lacking sadly. Some general appreciation of economics might help too.
'They don't even have the courage of their own convictions."
Directors of public companies who choose to pay themselves £11,000,000 bonuses do not in my opinion have the right to pontificate to the 99.999999% of people who are considerably worse off than they are about why they think the government were right to their reduce their corporation tax bills from 28% to 20%. Well they can but then others can comment on their vulgarity without facing criticism from their cheer leaders on sites like this.
I am not a cheerleader for business.
Directors of companies have a vote like anyone else and are just as entitled to comment as those who don't pay any tax at all. And we can choose to agree or not or simply to ignore.
Labour have quite a good argument to make about the excessive enrichment by those at the top unrelated to real achievement. It's a pity they don't make it rather than pointing at people and going: "Rich. Boo!".
Still, I hadn't realised that your objection was to their vulgarity. Nor do I see why those who dislike this vulgarity should be exempt from criticism, as you seem to want.
Still, there is a lot of vulgarity around in public life, I agree with you there. A pretty good example can be found in the former leader of the Labour party, one Tony Blair.
Comments
How does that ad work in an age of autonomous voters?
Did Alex self park his tanks on Miliband's lawn?
Face it mate. You are at all out war with business. Business that employs untold millions and pays untold billions in taxes.
Small business. Big business. The self employed. Anybody who isn;t a 'right on' wealthy guy like a senior civil servant or that f8ckwit actor who did your commercial.
Or is it to complain about the exploitation of young semi naked nubile women in newspapers?
http://order-order.com/2015/04/01/page-3-totty-back-in-print/#_@/I99jTsFX81rT_g
Since it's nearly Easter, it might be worth pointing out that Jesus described such people very well when he pointed to the Pharisees, ostentatiously displaying their religiosity to all and sundry. He had something to say about rich men as well.
It may not be the end of the world as a lot of people are sick of the GE and it is still over a month away.
http://www.thenational.scot/politics/labour-voters-are-moving-to-the-snp-in-droves-poll-finds.1628
The other difference between it and the other newspapers is that the latter, and the state broadcaster, are mostly rabidly pro-union and anti-SNP. I couldn't possibly comment.
*Correction. None of their stories are on the front page! But for something so good for the SNP it's not being played up in an exaggerated manner.
Besides the coverage today was far more positive to Labour than to the Tories.
Also of note, both he and Martin Freemen created their companies when Labour were in power....
They should have anticipated what might happen and been better prepared.
Given everything Milliband has said about business, trying to pretend - in a somewhat hafl-hearted way and on a topic (the EU) where they face obvious attacks from UKIP - that somehow Labour are on their side was just bizarre and inept.
http://www.premierchristianity.com/Topics/Society/Politics/David-Cameron-s-Easter-Message-to-Christians
At least Clegg and Mikiband are honest that they are atheists... As with Europe Cameron shifts and slides and tries to be all things to everyone without meaning anything
Doesn't even mention JC!
What does it mean when a politician says something like this?
"no intention of reducing the [40p] threshold."
http://www.itv.com/news/update/2015-04-01/balls-no-intention-of-reducing-tax-rate-threshold/
I suggest you read both the OFCOM ruling and the OFCOM rules as you seem to be wrong about both.
I'm here all night.
http://www.itv.com/news/2015-04-01/clegg-accused-of-distancing-himself-from-lib-dems-with-new-election-leaflet/
Anthony Kerr (@misterarsey)
01/04/2015 17:37
@IsabelHardman it's part of the long term ecumenical plan
Ashcroft said the letter from businessmen complaining about Labour in 2010 did not have the effect the Tories thought it did.
"the collection of hundreds of business endorsements for the Conservative policy, including dozens from famous names left the voters nonplussed...The endorsements helped to generate news,
and added to the policy’s credibility among commentators, all of which made the exercise worthwhile. But voters saw it simply as a series of business people supporting what was in
their own private interests. There might well be good reasons to support the policy, but the fact that it would make certain businessmen richer was not one of them"
http://www.lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/minority-verdict.pdf (pg.50)
This is my favourite one, replete with bar chart
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B_wSHP1WcAAmEaF.jpg:large
I assume his company is paying its fair share of corporation tax and VAT, that he's not putting personal expenses through the books, and that he's paying tax on any dividends that take him into the 40%/45% brackets. What more should this actor/company director do?
This faux outrage is so ...err... faux?
Andy Harrison, the CEO of Whitbread, which owns the Costa Coffee chain amongst other restaurant brands, was paid £6.3 million, over 400 times as much as his average employee. Again, CEO pay at Whitbread has increased from just £2.6 million in 2010
Wonder why they like the Tories
So what?
The more useful question political parties might ask themselves is why a portion of the electorate don't support them, whether this is or could be a problem and what they might do about it.
Businessmen may well be fat cats (and I tend to think that too many senior business leaders have concentrated rather more on enriching themselves than has been good for their companies) but business earns the money which allows us to spend money on all sorts of essential (and non-essential) public goodies.
If they - or some of them - think that Labour may not be good for business it's worth listening to why they're saying that and dealing with the argument.
Only a stupid party or person refuses to listen to the message because they don't like the person saying it.
EDIT: I do find it a bit dishonest though to print a leaflet in another parties colours.
.Should one of them tell EdM
When there were 3 major parties they had room to include the LDs in reports. But with four that's just too many to fit in - so they just concentrate on the big 2.
Result - making UKIP a major party has had a catastrophic effect on the LDs - and isn't helping UKIP that much.
Tomorrow's debate is now vital as it is the ONLY chance of anyone other than Con/Lab getting any momentum.
The question is, is he making full use of the tax efficient possibilities of the unique position he is in. Most in the media do. Not being on PAYE, getting income from a wide variety of sources from around the world and the ability to do deals to be paid in all sorts of ways beyond simply £x for a y job opens up a huge number of ways to make sure your money is paid in the most tax efficient way.
Nothing wrong with that, any sensible person would, unless you are shouting from the rooftops about how it is morally wrong. Simply finding out that he has a service company, which he is director of doesn't tell us that.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B8Cw_kxCUAA02rG.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B9-Eo4dIEAAE5fa.jpg:large
Though I did like the Nick Clegg magazine they sent us
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CBWK48BW4AAgKYq.jpg:large
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CBWKqB5WoAI1SzH.jpg:large
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CBWLkhsXIAAT-3R.jpg:large
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CBWMgupWgAALPQE.jpg:large
On way home I heard vox pop on Lab-Tory seat Carlisle...
Labour, Conservative mentioned and SNP - not a sniff of UKIP or LD.
UKIP do not have the same status with OFCOM as the Tories, Liberals and Labour. The Liberals do not have the same status as the Tories and Labour.
UKIPs status is as a third tier major party, the same as the SNP, Plaid Cymru and the NI parties.
The OFCOM rules require broadcasters to balance the coverage the Tories and Labour get ONLY. They can show other major parties up to this level but are not required to with the exception of geographicly limited broadcasts. So in Scotland they must give the SNP the same coverage as Labour and the Tories.
But in UK wide or GB wide broadcasting there is absolutely ZERO requirement for them to give UKIP the same coverage as the Tories and Labour.
No reason why actors can't do the same as barristers, for instance. The main reason for creating a company is that it is a tax efficient way of managing one's financial affairs and any competent accountant will suggest it.
But they have a choice. Just because they can doesn't mean they have to.
And if you start lecturing others about your values, expect others to judge you by your expressed values. That's all.
Bit like second kitchens you do use and second kitchens you don't use.
Or that is how it seems in world of Ed Miliband.
The Tories, Lib Dems and Labour are the only GB wide major parties.
The SNP and Plaid are major parties in their respective countries
That would not however prevent someone from being outraged at someone else using that legal advantage, if they or the party they support proclaims such activities to be immoral. I am not interested enough to delve into the detail of this case and seeing how ridiculous the arrangements are, but that someone else might find those legal methods to be out of sync with the proclaimed values and moral superiority (if indeed that is the case) would not make the outrage faux necessarily, it could just be outrage at hypocrisy not at the actual activity in question itself exactly.
Of course the BBC is acting entirely within the rules - that is blindingly obvious.
All I am observing is what is happening - and it is significantly different from 2010. The LDs have just got unlucky - nobody's fault, no suggestion the BBC (or anyone else) is doing anything wrong - that's just the way it's turned out.
It isn't.
It's like saying in response to Labour's proposals on zero hours contracts that Labour are funded by the unions as if that were an answer. And again it isn't. Labour have some good points on such contracts: the uncertainty, for one thing and the exploitative nature. Their proposed solution may not be sensible but they have a point which needs to be addressed.
Similarly, the businessmen may well have a point about Labour's attitude and approach to business, which is more than simply "I'm rich and I'm worried that I might have to pay more tax". Labour are simply refusing to deal with the argument and are simply responding in an ad hominem way. It's pathetic.
They don't even have the courage of their own convictions.
Edit: And I can assure you that I don't have a Panglossian approach to these businesses, not in my job.
A very subtle flavour for a rose. Cheeky without being impertinent as Jancis Robinson might say.
The award for 'Best Rose 2012' is well deserved.
Congratulations to the Pitts
I do think this is an issue for Labour, particularly amongst their activist base who are full of the moral crusade. Many of their grassroots voters don't have an idealistic bone in their bodies, they simply vote Labour because they think it's in their own selfish interests.
"Kippers do have the lowest IQ though don't they?"
By a distance I would think. When I see Farage I sometimes wonder whether we have the equipment to measure it
Green - 108.3
Liberal Democrat - 108.2
Conservative - 103.7
Labour – 103
Plaid Cymru - 102.5
Scottish National - 102.2
UK Independence - 101.1
British National - 98.4
It sticks in my throat when rich, privileged people criticise other people for being rich and priveliged. It's hypocrisy. But this "he channels his fees through a company" thing is quite a different matter.
In this case - as I would have thought was blindingly obvious - that was not the case.
As regular readers will know I am actually voting Con - so (again obviously!) I am personally delighted with the BBC's overwhelming focus on Con/Lab.
There is a very good reason why most of the media, footballer, high earning people not on PAYE decide to channel things via service companies. If there was little to no advantage, they wouldn't do it.
In that sense too I suspect that many in business do genuinely believe that Milliband would be both bad for them personally and for their business and business in general. I certainly do given his track record with his interventions as LOTO.
Now all that said the vast majority outside their private circles will probably not shout it from the rooftops or sign letters in papers, as they will not want to stick their head above the parapet and draw attention to their area of business given there is a high probability that Milliband will be running the show in a few weeks propped up ( for a while ) by his Scottish "allies".
Think I will be looking after her for a few weeks yet but on the mend thanks,
Mrs BJ is already mended and by far the fittest in my house (she says)
I had a punt on the Lib Dems in St Austell and Newquay in February or early March, on the basis it was a three-horse race where a small shift to Ukip or Conservative would cancel out likely extra incumbency effects; I'm glad I was able to get out of it by backing the Tories with a certain bookmaker which shall remain nameless that offered preposterously good prices a few weeks ago.
I have an "academic" question. Does anyone remember what were considered the most unlikely victories in 2010? Wall et al. claim in the paper titled "What are the Odds?" that two candidates between 9/1 and 19/1 won seats, and nobody priced longer than 19/1. Does anyone know who those two winners were?
Whereas it was Wilson in 1961 who said: "The Labour Party is a moral crusade or it is nothing."
If you're going to dish out moral brickbats, then you have to learn to take them too.
Not whinge about how unfair it all is.
Given that the "average" IQ is 100 this seems implausible. Although I suppose the average IQ of non-voters could be part of the explanation.
'They don't even have the courage of their own convictions."
Directors of public companies who choose to pay themselves £11,000,000 bonuses do not in my opinion have the right to pontificate to the 99.999999% of people who are considerably worse off than they are about why they think the government were right to their reduce their corporation tax bills from 28% to 20%. Well they can but then others can comment on their vulgarity without facing criticism from their cheer leaders on sites like this.
No wonder I am thick.
And if they buggered off and stopped funding the health system, which would mean all those businesses' employees would drop dead and not be able to help make profits.
http://iq-test.co.uk/stats/
I listen to alot of radio, I mean alot, and sometimes you think it's a parallel universe when it comes to politics. Romney pummelled Obama in all three debates, I mean pummelled him. I was astonished when the plaudits started calling it for Obama in 2 and 3.
For tomorrow, I wouldn't be at all surprised if Labour and UKIP have formed a non aggression pact so they can both concentrate on the Tories. The left and right obviously have some history of these unholy alliances when there is some kind of mutual interest involved.
In the recent Euros I received 2 from UKIP though, and I've even seen someone canvassing for them out and about, so I anticipate a bit more leaflet traffic this time around.
Directors of companies have a vote like anyone else and are just as entitled to comment as those who don't pay any tax at all. And we can choose to agree or not or simply to ignore.
Labour have quite a good argument to make about the excessive enrichment by those at the top unrelated to real achievement. It's a pity they don't make it rather than pointing at people and going: "Rich. Boo!".
Still, I hadn't realised that your objection was to their vulgarity. Nor do I see why those who dislike this vulgarity should be exempt from criticism, as you seem to want.
Still, there is a lot of vulgarity around in public life, I agree with you there. A pretty good example can be found in the former leader of the Labour party, one Tony Blair.