Does the two EdEd monster not talk with each other?
The journalists need to throw this in Ed's face. They won't which is why most will never realise there is a split and yet again the two Ed's face in different directions at once.
A sad indictment of political debate in this country.
Do any Labour-leaning posters have any comments to make over the success of the government's troubled families scheme?
Or are they more interested in hatred of the rich (excepting 'their' rich) than helping the less fortunate?
I think it's been a qualified success - for that the Government has to be given credit.
I'm not in the business of saying everything the Tories do is bad and everything that Labour does is good - the most calamitous decision made by a PM since the war was made by a Labour PM (Tony Blair).
I also appreciate David Cameron's performance at CHOGM in Colombo last year - he played an absolute blinder...
However, I firmly believe in progressive politics and hence the Labour party despite it's many shortfalls will get my vote.
Does the two EdEd monster not talk with each other?
The journalists need to throw this in Ed's face. They won't which is why most will never realise there is a split and yet again the two Ed's face in different directions at once.
A sad indictment of political debate in this country.
'Question to the Great Leader will not be permitted'.
Journalists be booed and hissed by the assembled Labour throng.
What a surprise that Labour are in trouble over this issue.
Balls is just playing general election games. This will never happen. HMRC currently receive up to 90k from wealthy individuals for minimal effort. They are going to be saddled with the onerous task of calculating the worldwide earnings of secretive people. And that assumes they don’t just move offshore and visit here very occasionally. Labour never abolished this status when in power for very good reasons and Balls was one of its strongest defenders.
Do any Labour-leaning posters have any comments to make over the success of the government's troubled families scheme?
Or are they more interested in hatred of the rich (excepting 'their' rich) than helping the less fortunate?
I think it's been a qualified success - for that the Government has to be given credit.
I'm not in the business of saying everything the Tories do is bad and everything that Labour does is good - the most calamitous decision made by a PM since the war was made by a Labour PM (Tony Blair).
I also appreciate David Cameron's performance at CHOGM in Colombo last year - he played an absolute blinder...
However, I firmly believe in progressive politics and hence the Labour party despite it's many shortfalls will get my vote.
That was a nice reply to what was perhaps a not-very-nice question. ;-)
"I think it is important that you make sure the non-dom rules work in a fair way. I think they were too lax in the past. Both the last Labour government and this Conservative government tightened them up. That’s something I’ll continue to look at. I think if you abolish the whole status then probably it ends up costing Britain money because there will be some people who then leave the country." Ed Balls, shadow chancellor
A new tax policy that unravels in under 12 hours. That is impressive from Team Eds
Typical Miliband, it is all about the message, the outcomes matter not a jot, and even Balls recognises that such a policy has some serious problems.
But when the BBC are quick to point out the obvious gaffe, you know that Miliband has got it wrong.
He might like the message - but the coverage is now all about the split at the top of Labour. Not what he wanted leading the lunchtime news bulletins
Millibands ploughing on regardless with his speech in the Midlands. 'Bankers, Hedge Funds, Energy, Tax'. All his favourite soundbites, and sniggering at his own jokes. (Radio 5 Live if anyone can be bothered).
Mr. Pit, d'you live around there, or get a flight out?
Never been to an F1 race in person. I suspect I'd loathe it, up close. [I really dislike loud noise].
Mr. Horse, I read somewhere the change happened because Ford was pretty ill and couldn't do the fight scene. Regardless of whether it was by choice or not, it's a really nice comedy moment (the original trilogy of Indy films are fantastic. If I were writing the fifth, the first thing I'd do would be to have Shia LaBoeuf killed off).
Do any Labour-leaning posters have any comments to make over the success of the government's troubled families scheme?
Or are they more interested in hatred of the rich (excepting 'their' rich) than helping the less fortunate?
Morning Mr. Jessup,
There is an OCED report which suggests that families helped through the scheme fair no better than those that aren't. Therefore, one can conclude that the scheme is a waste of time and resources, worse it actively encourages some families to change their lifestyle.
TO be fair to the thread header. The non Dom thing has certainly been a narrative changer. Not quite in the way Labour expected though..... Or by 1030am !
Indeed a bunch of amateurs and muppets still fighting a class war. Scary to think they will shortly be in No 10 doing the same thing and much much more.
A new tax policy that unravels in under 12 hours. That is impressive from Team Eds
Typical Miliband, it is all about the message, the outcomes matter not a jot, and even Balls recognises that such a policy has some serious problems.
But when the BBC are quick to point out the obvious gaffe, you know that Miliband has got it wrong.
He might like the message - but the coverage is now all about the split at the top of Labour. Not what he wanted leading the lunchtime news bulletins
You need the evening news for traction. I suspect as always that with anything Labour do wrong it will be item No 3 and then gone by tomorrow. Any other party would get hit for a week on it.
The first Indiana Jones film (1981) came out before 'Dundee' (1986).
Also, I believe the original Indy script called for a long fist-fight with the sword-wielding guy; shooting him was an ab-lib Ford thought up on the day to save time.
Ford had Delhi belly, so to save time for him to rush back to the loo.
I think that it is important that you make sure the non-dom rules work in a fair way. I think they were too lax in the past. Both the last Labour government and this Conservative government have tightened them up. That is something I will continue to look at. I think if you abolish the whole status then probably it ends up costing Britain money because there will be some people who will then leave the country.
But Balls also added at the end:
But I think we can be tougher and we should be and we will.
It is just bizarre watching it unroll. It is a piece of 1984 speak. Labour re-writing what they believe within a few weeks of saying it. If the media cannot nail Labour over this, then we probably know that Labour are untouchable.
Makes you wonder if Miliband told Balls about this, because one thing Balls isn't, is stupid. And he will have known he said this only 3 months ago.
Not a great way to potentially run government, even in the nadir of the dark Blair/Brown days you couldn't imagine Blair announcing a major tax policy that Brown had said months ago would be wrong.
But presumably at some late point Miliband must have told Balls about his new wheeze. Balls should have been able to warn Miliband it was a bad idea even at the last minute. Better to abandon a daft policy even if it was planned before its announced than be humiliated after the announcement.
Do any Labour-leaning posters have any comments to make over the success of the government's troubled families scheme?
Or are they more interested in hatred of the rich (excepting 'their' rich) than helping the less fortunate?
Morning Mr. Jessup,
There is an OCED report which suggests that families helped through the scheme fair no better than those that aren't. Therefore, one can conclude that the scheme is a waste of time and resources, worse it actively encourages some families to change their lifestyle.
Morning, mr Llama.
Oh, I haven't seen that report, and if so it may change my mind on something I'm extremely passionate about. Do you have a link?
I think that it is important that you make sure the non-dom rules work in a fair way. I think they were too lax in the past. Both the last Labour government and this Conservative government have tightened them up. That is something I will continue to look at. I think if you abolish the whole status then probably it ends up costing Britain money because there will be some people who will then leave the country.
But Balls also added at the end:
But I think we can be tougher and we should be and we will.
Indeed - I may be missing something here, but if the Labour policy does not affect 60% of non-doms the whole status is not being abolished, is it?
Do any Labour-leaning posters have any comments to make over the success of the government's troubled families scheme?
Or are they more interested in hatred of the rich (excepting 'their' rich) than helping the less fortunate?
Morning Mr. Jessup,
There is an OCED report which suggests that families helped through the scheme fair no better than those that aren't. Therefore, one can conclude that the scheme is a waste of time and resources, worse it actively encourages some families to change their lifestyle.
Morning, mr Llama.
Oh, I haven't seen that report, and if so it may change my mind on something I'm extremely passionate about. Do you have a link?
Ummm. I was actually trying to gently poke fun at Mr Observer and his frequent quotes of an OECD (as opposed to OCED) report on eduction.
patrickwintour's avatar Patrick Wintour @patrickwintour Miliband on Balls quote saying NDs will cost UK: "We found a way that independent experts say will raise at least hundreds of millions".
@PippaCrerar: Ed Miliband says he has found a way to abolish non dom status that "independent experts" say would raise money- despite what Ed Balls said.
I think that it is important that you make sure the non-dom rules work in a fair way. I think they were too lax in the past. Both the last Labour government and this Conservative government have tightened them up. That is something I will continue to look at. I think if you abolish the whole status then probably it ends up costing Britain money because there will be some people who will then leave the country.
But Balls also added at the end:
But I think we can be tougher and we should be and we will.
I think that it is important that you make sure the non-dom rules work in a fair way. I think they were too lax in the past. Both the last Labour government and this Conservative government have tightened them up. That is something I will continue to look at. I think if you abolish the whole status then probably it ends up costing Britain money because there will be some people who will then leave the country.
But Balls also added at the end:
But I think we can be tougher and we should be and we will.
Ben, Ben, Ben, Ben, Ben.
You just don't get it. Actually, you don't want to get it.
Labour has massively screwed this up.
Eddie B is on the record opposing scrapping the Non-Dom rules - plain and simple. Eddie M has just launched a new policy saying he wants to scrap them.
The two most 'important' figures in the Labour party aren't talking to one another.
It is a classic split. A gaffe. A complete balls-up
And with regards to being tougher - didn't you notice that the Non-Dom rules got tougher in the Budget last month?
It is just bizarre watching it unroll. It is a piece of 1984 speak. Labour re-writing what they believe within a few weeks of saying it. If the media cannot nail Labour over this, then we probably know that Labour are untouchable.
Can you explain how a policy that does not affect 60% of those with non-dom status contradicts anything that Ed Balls said in January?
I think that it is important that you make sure the non-dom rules work in a fair way. I think they were too lax in the past. Both the last Labour government and this Conservative government have tightened them up. That is something I will continue to look at. I think if you abolish the whole status then probably it ends up costing Britain money because there will be some people who will then leave the country.
But Balls also added at the end:
But I think we can be tougher and we should be and we will.
Ben, Ben, Ben, Ben, Ben.
You just don't get it. Actually, you don't want to get it.
Labour has massively screwed this up.
Eddie B is on the record opposing scrapping the Non-Dom rules - plain and simple. Eddie M has just launched a new policy saying he wants to scrap them.
The two most 'important' figures in the Labour party aren't talking to one another.
It is a classic split. A gaffe. A complete balls-up
And with regards to being tougher - didn't you notice that the Non-Dom rules got tougher in the Budget last month?
Oh Ben.
More Guido nonsense. Read the transacript.
Balls states that Labour will toughen up the rules no matter what the cost.
The Tory attack has petered out.
Now, will you Tories do what most of the commentariat is suggesting and bow to the nevitable over non doms?
@GuidoFawkes: Correction: Earlier we mistakenly stated @labourpress had stopped bringing a spoon to a knife fight. This was an error, and we apologise.
Indiana Jones was around 1980 whereas Crocodile Dundee was 1986ish (he says without checking) so I'd guess Indy got there first...I do still treasure that "That's not a knife...that's a knife" line though...
patrickwintour's avatar Patrick Wintour @patrickwintour Miliband on Balls quote saying NDs will cost UK: "We found a way that independent experts say will raise at least hundreds of millions".
Hundred of millions....that is basically a rounding error in the UK economy...only 75 BILLION to go then....
Again if this is major manifesto stuff that in pure financial terms is basically a rounding error in the UK economy, Labour don't have any real plans (at least not the one that most will suspect, tax rises for everybody and a lot more borrowing) to deal with the deficit.
But as mood music, bash the rich is popular, so job done I guess.
I think that it is important that you make sure the non-dom rules work in a fair way. I think they were too lax in the past. Both the last Labour government and this Conservative government have tightened them up. That is something I will continue to look at. I think if you abolish the whole status then probably it ends up costing Britain money because there will be some people who will then leave the country.
But Balls also added at the end:
But I think we can be tougher and we should be and we will.
Ben, Ben, Ben, Ben, Ben.
You just don't get it. Actually, you don't want to get it.
Labour has massively screwed this up.
Eddie B is on the record opposing scrapping the Non-Dom rules - plain and simple. Eddie M has just launched a new policy saying he wants to scrap them.
The two most 'important' figures in the Labour party aren't talking to one another.
It is a classic split. A gaffe. A complete balls-up
And with regards to being tougher - didn't you notice that the Non-Dom rules got tougher in the Budget last month?
Oh Ben.
More Guido nonsense. Read the transacript.
Balls states that Labour will toughen up the rules no matter what the cost.
The Tory attack has petered out.
Now, will you Tories do what most of the commentariat is suggesting and bow to the nevitable over non doms?
Keep trying to peddle your line. It isn't working. But do keep peddling.
A competitive tax system is necessary for a thriving economy. Driving wealth creators out is absolutely not.
@Plato - I know a few months back, one of the biggest billboard companies in the UK said the GE would not be a big boost for them. So sounds like the companies have known this for a while.
Do any Labour-leaning posters have any comments to make over the success of the government's troubled families scheme?
Or are they more interested in hatred of the rich (excepting 'their' rich) than helping the less fortunate?
Morning Mr. Jessup,
There is an OCED report which suggests that families helped through the scheme fair no better than those that aren't. Therefore, one can conclude that the scheme is a waste of time and resources, worse it actively encourages some families to change their lifestyle.
Morning, mr Llama.
Oh, I haven't seen that report, and if so it may change my mind on something I'm extremely passionate about. Do you have a link?
Ummm. I was actually trying to gently poke fun at Mr Observer and his frequent quotes of an OECD (as opposed to OCED) report on eduction.
I apologise.
Ah, okay. :-)
Hope all is well with you & yours. Sadly you don't seem to be posting as much as you used to.
Oh that's interesting. I know it's an expensive business, surprised that the outdoor market isn't considered too important nowadays.
It does great for morale and presence amongst activists I'd have thought. Defacing them online is the downside so maybe that's the crux of the change in tactics?
@Plato - I know a few months back, one of the biggest billboard companies in the UK said the GE would not be a big boost for them. So sounds like the companies have known this for a while.
The comments on the MSM and elsewhere are not about ending the Nom Dom status of a few rich people ..they are about the total disarray between the the LOTO and his chief Minister..
I think that it is important that you make sure the non-dom rules work in a fair way. I think they were too lax in the past. Both the last Labour government and this Conservative government have tightened them up. That is something I will continue to look at. I think if you abolish the whole status then probably it ends up costing Britain money because there will be some people who will then leave the country.
But Balls also added at the end:
But I think we can be tougher and we should be and we will.
Ben, Ben, Ben, Ben, Ben.
You just don't get it. Actually, you don't want to get it.
Labour has massively screwed this up.
Eddie B is on the record opposing scrapping the Non-Dom rules - plain and simple. Eddie M has just launched a new policy saying he wants to scrap them.
The two most 'important' figures in the Labour party aren't talking to one another.
It is a classic split. A gaffe. A complete balls-up
And with regards to being tougher - didn't you notice that the Non-Dom rules got tougher in the Budget last month?
Oh Ben.
More Guido nonsense. Read the transacript.
Balls states that Labour will toughen up the rules no matter what the cost.
The Tory attack has petered out.
Now, will you Tories do what most of the commentariat is suggesting and bow to the nevitable over non doms?
Keep trying to peddle your line. It isn't working. But do keep peddling.
A competitive tax system is necessary for a thriving economy. Driving wealth creators out is absolutely not.
Balls knew that back in January.
What has changed?
Nothing has changed, the policy is following through what Balls said.
Nothing has changed as far as Tories are concerned. Still defending their rich non domiciled chums.
It is just bizarre watching it unroll. It is a piece of 1984 speak. Labour re-writing what they believe within a few weeks of saying it. If the media cannot nail Labour over this, then we probably know that Labour are untouchable.
Can you explain how a policy that does not affect 60% of those with non-dom status contradicts anything that Ed Balls said in January?
I will wait to see what tax experts say, one on Sky earlier said that it was 5,000 people affected of the 110,000+ non-doms. An FT report from Govt data said that on average the payment was already £90k a year of those that paid.
So these 5,000 are apparently going to generate "hundreds of millions more", net, according to RedEd. With none re-arranging their financial affairs............
Miliband says the British people are fed up with a status quo that allows things like the non-dom rule.
As for people threatening to leave the country, we have heard all these arguments before. Some people even threatened to leave the country when Tony Blair became prime minister. It is what people with special privilege say when they want to carry on enjoying those privileges.
He cannot justify the non-dom rule. And he is going to run a country where there is one rule for all.
That will be a basic intuition of a Labour government, he says.
Brilliant. Fresh. Music to mine and millions of voters' ears.
I think that it is important that you make sure the non-dom rules work in a fair way. I think they were too lax in the past. Both the last Labour government and this Conservative government have tightened them up. That is something I will continue to look at. I think if you abolish the whole status then probably it ends up costing Britain money because there will be some people who will then leave the country.
But Balls also added at the end:
But I think we can be tougher and we should be and we will.
Ben, Ben, Ben, Ben, Ben.
You just don't get it. Actually, you don't want to get it.
Labour has massively screwed this up.
Eddie B is on the record opposing scrapping the Non-Dom rules - plain and simple. Eddie M has just launched a new policy saying he wants to scrap them.
The two most 'important' figures in the Labour party aren't talking to one another.
It is a classic split. A gaffe. A complete balls-up
And with regards to being tougher - didn't you notice that the Non-Dom rules got tougher in the Budget last month?
Oh Ben.
More Guido nonsense. Read the transacript.
Balls states that Labour will toughen up the rules no matter what the cost.
The Tory attack has petered out.
Now, will you Tories do what most of the commentariat is suggesting and bow to the nevitable over non doms?
Keep trying to peddle your line. It isn't working. But do keep peddling.
A competitive tax system is necessary for a thriving economy. Driving wealth creators out is absolutely not.
Balls knew that back in January.
What has changed?
Nothing has changed, the policy is following through what Balls said.
Nothing has changed as far as Tories are concerned. Still defending their rich non domiciled chums.
The voters are watching.
Nothing has changed as far as Labour are concerned. Still more bothered about hatred of the rich (at least the *wrong* rich) than helping the needy.
It is just bizarre watching it unroll. It is a piece of 1984 speak. Labour re-writing what they believe within a few weeks of saying it. If the media cannot nail Labour over this, then we probably know that Labour are untouchable.
Can you explain how a policy that does not affect 60% of those with non-dom status contradicts anything that Ed Balls said in January?
I will wait to see what tax experts say, one on Sky earlier said that it was 5,000 people affected of the 110,000+ non-doms. An FT report from Govt data said that on average the payment was already £90k a year of those that paid.
So these 5,000 are apparently going to generate "hundreds of millions more", net, according to RedEd. With none re-arranging their financial affairs............
That'll be a No then.
There is no policy meltdown. CCHQ merely released a partial quote from Balls.
Miliband says the British people are fed up with a status quo that allows things like the non-dom rule.
As for people threatening to leave the country, we have heard all these arguments before. Some people even threatened to leave the country when Tony Blair became prime minister. It is what people with special privilege say when they want to carry on enjoying those privileges.
He cannot justify the non-dom rule. And he is going to run a country where there is one rule for all.
That will be a basic intuition of a Labour government, he says.
Brilliant. Fresh. Music to mine and millions of voters' ears.
Miliband says the British people are fed up with a status quo that allows things like the non-dom rule.
As for people threatening to leave the country, we have heard all these arguments before. Some people even threatened to leave the country when Tony Blair became prime minister. It is what people with special privilege say when they want to carry on enjoying those privileges.
He cannot justify the non-dom rule. And he is going to run a country where there is one rule for all.
That will be a basic intuition of a Labour government, he says.
Brilliant. Fresh. Music to mine and millions of voters' ears.
Tories getting into a bit of a frenzy this morning. I'm just relieved that I didn't apply to go to the "Labour Event" in Sedgefield I received an invitation to attend.
I think that it is important that you make sure the non-dom rules work in a fair way. I think they were too lax in the past. Both the last Labour government and this Conservative government have tightened them up. That is something I will continue to look at. I think if you abolish the whole status then probably it ends up costing Britain money because there will be some people who will then leave the country.
But Balls also added at the end:
But I think we can be tougher and we should be and we will.
Ben, Ben, Ben, Ben, Ben.
You just don't get it. Actually, you don't want to get it.
Labour has massively screwed this up.
Eddie B is on the record opposing scrapping the Non-Dom rules - plain and simple. Eddie M has just launched a new policy saying he wants to scrap them.
The two most 'important' figures in the Labour party aren't talking to one another.
It is a classic split. A gaffe. A complete balls-up
And with regards to being tougher - didn't you notice that the Non-Dom rules got tougher in the Budget last month?
Oh Ben.
More Guido nonsense. Read the transacript.
Balls states that Labour will toughen up the rules no matter what the cost.
The Tory attack has petered out.
Now, will you Tories do what most of the commentariat is suggesting and bow to the nevitable over non doms?
Keep trying to peddle your line. It isn't working. But do keep peddling.
A competitive tax system is necessary for a thriving economy. Driving wealth creators out is absolutely not.
Balls knew that back in January.
What has changed?
Nothing has changed, the policy is following through what Balls said.
Nothing has changed as far as Tories are concerned. Still defending their rich non domiciled chums.
The voters are watching.
That's the key Ben - the narrative.
As some of the more enlightened right-wing posters (not many I know) have suggested - this is very good politics and will play well with the electorate.
I think that it is important that you make sure the non-dom rules work in a fair way. I think they were too lax in the past. Both the last Labour government and this Conservative government have tightened them up. That is something I will continue to look at. I think if you abolish the whole status then probably it ends up costing Britain money because there will be some people who will then leave the country.
But Balls also added at the end:
But I think we can be tougher and we should be and we will.
Ben, Ben, Ben, Ben, Ben.
You just don't get it. Actually, you don't want to get it.
Labour has massively screwed this up.
Eddie B is on the record opposing scrapping the Non-Dom rules - plain and simple. Eddie M has just launched a new policy saying he wants to scrap them.
The two most 'important' figures in the Labour party aren't talking to one another.
It is a classic split. A gaffe. A complete balls-up
And with regards to being tougher - didn't you notice that the Non-Dom rules got tougher in the Budget last month?
Oh Ben.
More Guido nonsense. Read the transacript.
Balls states that Labour will toughen up the rules no matter what the cost.
The Tory attack has petered out.
Now, will you Tories do what most of the commentariat is suggesting and bow to the nevitable over non doms?
Keep trying to peddle your line. It isn't working. But do keep peddling.
A competitive tax system is necessary for a thriving economy. Driving wealth creators out is absolutely not.
Balls knew that back in January.
What has changed?
Nothing has changed, the policy is following through what Balls said.
Nothing has changed as far as Tories are concerned. Still defending their rich non domiciled chums.
The voters are watching.
And the media are ripping it apart. The voters will notice that even more.
Miliband says the British people are fed up with a status quo that allows things like the non-dom rule.
As for people threatening to leave the country, we have heard all these arguments before. Some people even threatened to leave the country when Tony Blair became prime minister. It is what people with special privilege say when they want to carry on enjoying those privileges.
He cannot justify the non-dom rule. And he is going to run a country where there is one rule for all.
That will be a basic intuition of a Labour government, he says.
Brilliant. Fresh. Music to mine and millions of voters' ears.
It is just bizarre watching it unroll. It is a piece of 1984 speak. Labour re-writing what they believe within a few weeks of saying it. If the media cannot nail Labour over this, then we probably know that Labour are untouchable.
Can you explain how a policy that does not affect 60% of those with non-dom status contradicts anything that Ed Balls said in January?
I will wait to see what tax experts say, one on Sky earlier said that it was 5,000 people affected of the 110,000+ non-doms. An FT report from Govt data said that on average the payment was already £90k a year of those that paid.
So these 5,000 are apparently going to generate "hundreds of millions more", net, according to RedEd. With none re-arranging their financial affairs............
That'll be a No then.
There is no policy meltdown. CCHQ merely released a partial quote from Balls.
Look back at the comments at around midnight last night with lots of people stating what a terrible campaign the tories were running and how brilliant Labours was.
As i said last night if Eds nom dom thing was such a great policy it would have been done years ago.
The election. Even Miliband realises that you can't actually campaign with a blank sheet of paper, so he has been dreaming up all sorts of "mood music" policies that he hopes will persuade the wavering lefty vote even though they rarely make sense or add up to anything substantial. Lord knows what Miliband will actually do when he is PM, he is probably crossing his fingers that Balls has some workable policies tucked away for emergency use.
It is just bizarre watching it unroll. It is a piece of 1984 speak. Labour re-writing what they believe within a few weeks of saying it. If the media cannot nail Labour over this, then we probably know that Labour are untouchable.
Can you explain how a policy that does not affect 60% of those with non-dom status contradicts anything that Ed Balls said in January?
sorry SO it's all about how it plays. Stop arguing with the ref. It was a great policy announcement for Lab and it is now a great story for the Cons.
I think that it is important that you make sure the non-dom rules work in a fair way. I think they were too lax in the past. Both the last Labour government and this Conservative government have tightened them up. That is something I will continue to look at. I think if you abolish the whole status then probably it ends up costing Britain money because there will be some people who will then leave the country.
But Balls also added at the end:
But I think we can be tougher and we should be and we will.
Ben, Ben, Ben, Ben, Ben.
You just don't get it. Actually, you don't want to get it.
Labour has massively screwed this up.
Eddie B is on the record opposing scrapping the Non-Dom rules - plain and simple. Eddie M has just launched a new policy saying he wants to scrap them.
The two most 'important' figures in the Labour party aren't talking to one another.
It is a classic split. A gaffe. A complete balls-up
And with regards to being tougher - didn't you notice that the Non-Dom rules got tougher in the Budget last month?
Oh Ben.
More Guido nonsense. Read the transacript.
Balls states that Labour will toughen up the rules no matter what the cost.
The Tory attack has petered out.
Now, will you Tories do what most of the commentariat is suggesting and bow to the nevitable over non doms?
Keep trying to peddle your line. It isn't working. But do keep peddling.
A competitive tax system is necessary for a thriving economy. Driving wealth creators out is absolutely not.
Balls knew that back in January.
What has changed?
Nothing has changed, the policy is following through what Balls said.
Nothing has changed as far as Tories are concerned. Still defending their rich non domiciled chums.
The voters are watching.
That's the key Ben - the narrative.
As some of the more enlightened right-wing posters (not many I know) have suggested - this is very good politics and will play well with the electorate.
It would have been good politics if Balls hadn't been on the record opposing the very plan that Miliband has now adopted.
The message is now about a split in the Shadow Cabinet rather than any new policy.
Tories getting into a bit of a frenzy this morning. I'm just relieved that I didn't apply to go to the "Labour Event" in Sedgefield I received an invitation to attend.
Lets face it, Labour desperately needed something to make people forget about Blair being all over the news yesterday.
Look back at the comments at around midnight last night with lots of people stating what a terrible campaign the tories were running and how brilliant Labours was.
As i said last night if Eds nom dom thing was such a great policy it would have been done years ago.
Neither of them is running a particulary sharp campaign. The reality is kicking in.
There's no money.
So all we have is spinny wheezes to fill the next 2 weeks. The elctorate wont be that much wiser on what they will do by the end of the campign
"If I were writing the fifth, the first thing I'd do would be to have Shia LaBoeuf killed off)."
Be fair, Mr. D., your second writing speciality is killing off characters, usually in inventive ways.
I drove through prime Llamaland yesterday on my way to Gatwick - even Midhurst. Lovely day for the Downs and not much evidence of elections.
Morning Mr. Brooke,
I have come to the conclusion that the people of the nice bits of Sussex have decided that elections are vulgar. Like lavatories and rat-catchers something that has to be there but one doesn't want to talk about in public, let alone make a fuss about.
I do like Midhurst and the surrounding areas - beautiful countryside and some prime pubs and eateries. Next to bugger all public transport though (thanks to that ass Beeching) so The Temperance Association doesn't do outings there as often as the place deserves.
It is just bizarre watching it unroll. It is a piece of 1984 speak. Labour re-writing what they believe within a few weeks of saying it. If the media cannot nail Labour over this, then we probably know that Labour are untouchable.
Can you explain how a policy that does not affect 60% of those with non-dom status contradicts anything that Ed Balls said in January?
I will wait to see what tax experts say, one on Sky earlier said that it was 5,000 people affected of the 110,000+ non-doms. An FT report from Govt data said that on average the payment was already £90k a year of those that paid.
So these 5,000 are apparently going to generate "hundreds of millions more", net, according to RedEd. With none re-arranging their financial affairs............
That'll be a No then.
There is no policy meltdown. CCHQ merely released a partial quote from Balls.
Yep. The Tories did what all parties would do. They released a partial quote and grabbed some attention away from EdM. It was very good politics and Labour would do exactly the same. Let's see where we are with this in a few hours time.
Can you explain how a policy that does not affect 60% of those with non-dom status contradicts anything that Ed Balls said in January?
It contradicts what had been trailed for Miliband.
The important image that comes across is that the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing.
The detail of the policy is relegated to irrelevance, and explaining that most people will still get be free to avoid the tax would only make it look worse.
The election. Even Miliband realises that you can't actually campaign with a blank sheet of paper, so he has been dreaming up all sorts of "mood music" policies that he hopes will persuade the wavering lefty vote even though they rarely make sense or add up to anything substantial. Lord knows what Miliband will actually do when he is PM, he is probably crossing his fingers that Balls has some workable policies tucked away for emergency use.
Well today's Balls-up makes Miliband's route to Number 10 even harder.
The media love to talk about a split between a Party Leader and their (Shadow) Chancellor.
And the Eds have delivered that on a platter with a very lovely sparkly bow on top
Mr. Pit, d'you live around there, or get a flight out?
Never been to an F1 race in person. I suspect I'd loathe it, up close. [I really dislike loud noise].
Yes I'm not too far from there, hence the name! I try to get to 2 or 3 races a year, although forthcoming nuptials are putting something of a break on things now If you've never been I would recommend Silverstone, tickets are from 67 quid for the Friday this year. Also Spa if you fancy a short trip, best place to stand is at Eau Rouge as the cars change direction up the hill. If you find yourself with SeanT's income then I would recommend Singapore and Abu Dhabi, amazing events put on with money no object and brilliant atmosphere under lights. I make no comment on the noise, the bloody GP2 cars are louder than the "new" F1! http://www.silverstone.co.uk/events/2015-british-grand-prix/
It is just bizarre watching it unroll. It is a piece of 1984 speak. Labour re-writing what they believe within a few weeks of saying it. If the media cannot nail Labour over this, then we probably know that Labour are untouchable.
Can you explain how a policy that does not affect 60% of those with non-dom status contradicts anything that Ed Balls said in January?
sorry SO it's all about how it plays. Stop arguing with the ref. It was a great policy announcement for Lab and it is now a great story for the Cons.
We'll see. Everyone now knows that the Tories released a partial quote designed to give a false impression of the views Balls expressed in January.
The election. Even Miliband realises that you can't actually campaign with a blank sheet of paper, so he has been dreaming up all sorts of "mood music" policies that he hopes will persuade the wavering lefty vote even though they rarely make sense or add up to anything substantial. Lord knows what Miliband will actually do when he is PM, he is probably crossing his fingers that Balls has some workable policies tucked away for emergency use.
Well today's Balls-up makes Miliband's route to Number 10 even harder.
The media love to talk about a split between a Party Leader and their (Shadow) Chancellor.
And the Eds have delivered that on a platter with a very lovely sparkly bow on top
I think because it was Easter, but the housing wheeze announced on Saturday was the same...
Not only did Labour get the wrong name of the ISA they were targetting, they had different names for their own policy on the same press released AND Miliband didn't inform "Team Balls" of it. FT rang up Balls people and they had no idea what they were banging on about when it came to forcing banks* to invest the money in those ISA in a housing fund.
* within 24hrs that unraveled as well, to "encouraged".
Comments
Ed Ballsup
A sad indictment of political debate in this country.
I'm not in the business of saying everything the Tories do is bad and everything that Labour does is good - the most calamitous decision made by a PM since the war was made by a Labour PM (Tony Blair).
I also appreciate David Cameron's performance at CHOGM in Colombo last year - he played an absolute blinder...
However, I firmly believe in progressive politics and hence the Labour party despite it's many shortfalls will get my vote.
And if the BBC are prepared to lead on the gaffe (which they clearly are doing) then it is a bad day for wee Eddy
Journalists be booed and hissed by the assembled Labour throng.
Balls is just playing general election games. This will never happen. HMRC currently receive up to 90k from wealthy individuals for minimal effort. They are going to be saddled with the onerous task of calculating the worldwide earnings of secretive people. And that assumes they don’t just move offshore and visit here very occasionally.
Labour never abolished this status when in power for very good reasons and Balls was one of its strongest defenders.
"I think it is important that you make sure the non-dom rules work in a fair way. I think they were too lax in the past. Both the last Labour government and this Conservative government tightened them up. That’s something I’ll continue to look at. I think if you abolish the whole status then probably it ends up costing Britain money because there will be some people who then leave the country."
Ed Balls, shadow chancellor
He might like the message - but the coverage is now all about the split at the top of Labour. Not what he wanted leading the lunchtime news bulletins
Never fails to amaze me that they're willing to blame others for this, whilst more than happy to take the boat loads of cash on offer.
A classic case in governmental overreach
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Secretary_of_State_for_Transport,_ex_p_Factortame_Ltd
Never been to an F1 race in person. I suspect I'd loathe it, up close. [I really dislike loud noise].
Mr. Horse, I read somewhere the change happened because Ford was pretty ill and couldn't do the fight scene. Regardless of whether it was by choice or not, it's a really nice comedy moment (the original trilogy of Indy films are fantastic. If I were writing the fifth, the first thing I'd do would be to have Shia LaBoeuf killed off).
There is an OCED report which suggests that families helped through the scheme fair no better than those that aren't. Therefore, one can conclude that the scheme is a waste of time and resources, worse it actively encourages some families to change their lifestyle.
Indeed a bunch of amateurs and muppets still fighting a class war. Scary to think they will shortly be in No 10 doing the same thing and much much more.
1. It's still wrong (ZTH when it's unreasonable) ...
2. ... ad what happens if I lose my job and get sanctioned if I don't accept one of those jobs?
Definitely need a pay rise after that.
CCHQ Press Office @CCHQPress
.@Ed_Miliband – some people say your policy will make ppl leave the country – yep some people like @edballsmp …
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2015/apr/08/election-2015-live-blog-labour-ed-miliband-non-dom-tax-loophole#block-55250014e4b08caf50c1ee39
But presumably at some late point Miliband must have told Balls about his new wheeze. Balls should have been able to warn Miliband it was a bad idea even at the last minute. Better to abandon a daft policy even if it was planned before its announced than be humiliated after the announcement.
"If I were writing the fifth, the first thing I'd do would be to have Shia LaBoeuf killed off)."
Be fair, Mr. D., your second writing speciality is killing off characters, usually in inventive ways.
Oh, I haven't seen that report, and if so it may change my mind on something I'm extremely passionate about. Do you have a link?
Indeed - I may be missing something here, but if the Labour policy does not affect 60% of non-doms the whole status is not being abolished, is it?
And distancing himself from Brown and Darling and every other Labour Treasury minister in the past.
These probably won't shift any votes but making the political weather is important at this time, even if the seas are choppy.
Shade high for part one of a trilogy.
I apologise.
patrickwintour's avatar
Patrick Wintour @patrickwintour
Miliband on Balls quote saying NDs will cost UK: "We found a way that independent experts say will raise at least hundreds of millions".
You just don't get it. Actually, you don't want to get it.
Labour has massively screwed this up.
Eddie B is on the record opposing scrapping the Non-Dom rules - plain and simple.
Eddie M has just launched a new policy saying he wants to scrap them.
The two most 'important' figures in the Labour party aren't talking to one another.
It is a classic split. A gaffe. A complete balls-up
And with regards to being tougher - didn't you notice that the Non-Dom rules got tougher in the Budget last month?
Oh Ben.
Polls suggesting neck and neck - not good for either party. Labour may get more seats BUT they should be winning this by a country mile.
'BBC Radio News leading on Ed Balls comments, with a report on Labours Non Dom 'Confusion'. Whoops.'
Norman Smith BBC 'A major manifesto pledge that's gone pear shaped'
How sad is that.
You just don't get it. Actually, you don't want to get it.
Labour has massively screwed this up.
Eddie B is on the record opposing scrapping the Non-Dom rules - plain and simple.
Eddie M has just launched a new policy saying he wants to scrap them.
The two most 'important' figures in the Labour party aren't talking to one another.
It is a classic split. A gaffe. A complete balls-up
And with regards to being tougher - didn't you notice that the Non-Dom rules got tougher in the Budget last month?
Oh Ben.
More Guido nonsense. Read the transacript.
Balls states that Labour will toughen up the rules no matter what the cost.
The Tory attack has petered out.
Now, will you Tories do what most of the commentariat is suggesting and bow to the nevitable over non doms?
Again if this is major manifesto stuff that in pure financial terms is basically a rounding error in the UK economy, Labour don't have any real plans (at least not the one that most will suspect, tax rises for everybody and a lot more borrowing) to deal with the deficit.
But as mood music, bash the rich is popular, so job done I guess.
Balls states that Labour will toughen up the rules no matter what the cost.
The Tory attack has petered out.
Now, will you Tories do what most of the commentariat is suggesting and bow to the nevitable over non doms?
Keep trying to peddle your line. It isn't working. But do keep peddling.
A competitive tax system is necessary for a thriving economy. Driving wealth creators out is absolutely not.
Balls knew that back in January.
What has changed?
Hope all is well with you & yours. Sadly you don't seem to be posting as much as you used to.
It does great for morale and presence amongst activists I'd have thought. Defacing them online is the downside so maybe that's the crux of the change in tactics?
POEWAS
A competitive tax system is necessary for a thriving economy. Driving wealth creators out is absolutely not.
Balls knew that back in January.
What has changed?
Nothing has changed, the policy is following through what Balls said.
Nothing has changed as far as Tories are concerned. Still defending their rich non domiciled chums.
The voters are watching.
So these 5,000 are apparently going to generate "hundreds of millions more", net, according to RedEd. With none re-arranging their financial affairs............
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2015/apr/08/election-2015-live-blog-labour-ed-miliband-non-dom-tax-loophole#block-552503a6e4b006f9525456c0
Nothing has changed as far as Tories are concerned. Still defending their rich non domiciled chums.
The voters are watching.
Nothing has changed as far as Labour are concerned. Still more bothered about hatred of the rich (at least the *wrong* rich) than helping the needy.
There is no policy meltdown. CCHQ merely released a partial quote from Balls.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2015/apr/08/election-2015-live-blog-labour-ed-miliband-non-dom-tax-loophole#block-552503a6e4b006f9525456c0
Meaningless words.
Yours. And his.
Is that the best you can do?
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2015/apr/08/election-2015-live-blog-labour-ed-miliband-non-dom-tax-loophole#block-552503a6e4b006f9525456c0
So if there is one rule for all, then he will get rid of and declare illegal the Sharia courts then?
Nothing has changed as far as Tories are concerned. Still defending their rich non domiciled chums.
The voters are watching.
That's the key Ben - the narrative.
As some of the more enlightened right-wing posters (not many I know) have suggested - this is very good politics and will play well with the electorate.
Nothing has changed as far as Tories are concerned. Still defending their rich non domiciled chums.
The voters are watching.
And the media are ripping it apart. The voters will notice that even more.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2015/apr/08/election-2015-live-blog-labour-ed-miliband-non-dom-tax-loophole#block-552503a6e4b006f9525456c0
People didn't leave the country when Tory Blair came to power - but then he didn't do what Miliband is aiming to do.
"Brilliant. Fresh."
Hardly. Hollande in France already tried similar and it didn't work.
Labour have lost the argument here - all the media are going with GAFFE, no amount of arguing about it on here changes that.
Politics is politics.
As i said last night if Eds nom dom thing was such a great policy it would have been done years ago.
As some of the more enlightened right-wing posters (not many I know) have suggested - this is very good politics and will play well with the electorate.
It would have been good politics if Balls hadn't been on the record opposing the very plan that Miliband has now adopted.
The message is now about a split in the Shadow Cabinet rather than any new policy.
That is what today is now about.
Utterly toxic to the key Lib-Lab switchers imo.
There's no money.
So all we have is spinny wheezes to fill the next 2 weeks. The elctorate wont be that much wiser on what they will do by the end of the campign
I have come to the conclusion that the people of the nice bits of Sussex have decided that elections are vulgar. Like lavatories and rat-catchers something that has to be there but one doesn't want to talk about in public, let alone make a fuss about.
I do like Midhurst and the surrounding areas - beautiful countryside and some prime pubs and eateries. Next to bugger all public transport though (thanks to that ass Beeching) so The Temperance Association doesn't do outings there as often as the place deserves.
The important image that comes across is that the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing.
The detail of the policy is relegated to irrelevance, and explaining that most people will still get be free to avoid the tax would only make it look worse.
"The Conservatives are a virtual party... They don't exist in reality," Ed Miliband reassures Labour activists
Errr...what?
The media love to talk about a split between a Party Leader and their (Shadow) Chancellor.
And the Eds have delivered that on a platter with a very lovely sparkly bow on top
Maybe he thinks he's Neo.
I try to get to 2 or 3 races a year, although forthcoming nuptials are putting something of a break on things now
If you've never been I would recommend Silverstone, tickets are from 67 quid for the Friday this year. Also Spa if you fancy a short trip, best place to stand is at Eau Rouge as the cars change direction up the hill.
If you find yourself with SeanT's income then I would recommend Singapore and Abu Dhabi, amazing events put on with money no object and brilliant atmosphere under lights.
I make no comment on the noise, the bloody GP2 cars are louder than the "new" F1!
http://www.silverstone.co.uk/events/2015-british-grand-prix/
https://twitter.com/edballsmp/status/585754970047258625
Not only did Labour get the wrong name of the ISA they were targetting, they had different names for their own policy on the same press released AND Miliband didn't inform "Team Balls" of it. FT rang up Balls people and they had no idea what they were banging on about when it came to forcing banks* to invest the money in those ISA in a housing fund.
* within 24hrs that unraveled as well, to "encouraged".