Apologies if this point has already being made. But what if Osborne jumping all over labours territory was also a deliberate attempt to influence the labour leadership race, forcing the Labour leadership candidates to tack even further to the left to distinguish themselves?
If they are sensible they will take a Cameron and Osborne circa 2005 approach, ie accepting Tory proposals where they are sensible eg the living wage, benefit cap and IHT cut and defence spending at 2% increase per year and focus in on opposing more controversial areas eg in tax credit details, ending housing benefit for under 21s, the public sector pay freeze and the scrapping of dividend tax credit
Spot on. The Tories are acknowledging that stuff they have previously rubbished has resonance and makes sense politically and economically. For a clever opposition that should present plenty of opportunities. This could be the problem for Labour, though.
Have the SNP called the budget an "absolute disgrace" yet ?
More or less, they are being quite stupid about what is, in effect, one of the best budgets of recent years.
The min wage increase is exceptionally good and well beyond what you would expect from a Tory chancellor who should be ideologically opposed to it (even if higher minimum wages are generally always good economically).
The min wage increase alone should add 5% to GDP by 2020 at an absolute minimum. The let down is that he isn't being ballsy enough to implement it immediately - that would have let him see it has no impact on jobs and let him push it up even higher.
" In what is thought to be the first case challenging an election result in Scotland since the 1960s, the Election Court will sit on 7-8 September in the Court of Session. A hearing to finalise arrangements, including whether the proceedings can be broadcast live, will take place on 31 August. "
Oh I do hope they agree to let it be broadcast. Should be proper fun.
FWIW I went to a publishing party last night. The annual Harper Collins summer do, in the quad at the V&A Museum.
Now this has always been a fairly glamorous affair, by the very dowdy standards of publishing - you always got a bit of bubbly, some nice canapes, in lovely surroundings.
But last night the champagne was excellent, and endless, they never stopped pouring; there were food stations everywhere serving asparagus and prosciutto to special tiny puddings made from crystalised asphodel pollen (or whatever) and right at the centre was an enormous ice pyramid draped with crayfish, oysters, sashimi, lobster. I kid you not. It was Gatsby-ish.
Money is sloshing around the economy again. For some people the goodtimes are clearly back.
I'd like to think you're right - but don't forget, sometimes spending a lot on publicity and public relations generally (e.g. parties, paintwork, new logos) is a way of trying to cover up fundamental weaknesses. There is an old saying that when a bank gets a new HQ, that's the moment to sell its shares.
I am not saying HC is on the cusp of bankruptcy, of course - just that a lavish do isn't proof that it isn't.
Apologies if this point has already being made. But what if Osborne jumping all over labours territory was also a deliberate attempt to influence the labour leadership race, forcing the Labour leadership candidates to tack even further to the left to distinguish themselves?
If they are sensible they will take a Cameron and Osborne circa 2005 approach, ie accepting Tory proposals where they are sensible eg the living wage, benefit cap and IHT cut and defence spending at 2% increase per year and focus in on opposing more controversial areas eg in tax credit details, ending housing benefit for under 21s, the public sector pay freeze and the scrapping of dividend tax credit
Spot on. The Tories are acknowledging that stuff they have previously rubbished has resonance and makes sense politically and economically. For a clever opposition that should present plenty of opportunities. This could be the problem for Labour, though.
Indeed, key question is can Labour prove themselves 'a clever opposition?'
Mr. Flashman (deceased), was something announced about the self-employed?
Investors were given a boost to their pockets in today's Budget, with chancellor George Osborne pledging to reduce the amount of tax paid on dividends.
The dividend tax credit is being scrapped and, in its place, a £5,000 tax-free dividend is being introduced.
The changes will be implemented for all taxpayers from April 2016, the chancellor said today.
“This simpler system will mean that only those with significant dividend income will pay more tax,” Osborne said. “Investors with modest income from shares will see either a tax cut or no change in the amount of tax they owe.”
However, tax rates on dividend income are also changing. Basic rate taxpayers – who currently pay 10 per cent - will pay 7.5 per cent.
Higher rate taxpayers will continue to pay 32.5 per cent.
Additional rate taxpayers will be hit with a 38.1 per cent tax.
I am confused by this.
Dividend tax was 10%. There was a 10% tax credit which meant that basic rate tax payers paid nothing on up to £42,385 (the basic rate tax upper limit). Now they will pay 7.5% on anything over £16000 (personal allowance plus new £5000 dividend allowance.)
Where am I going wrong here?
I think your interpretation is correct.
I think the only people who will get a reduction in tax on dividends are those on over £42,385 with dividend income of less than £5,000 who will now pay nothing on their dividend income rather than 32.5% less 10% tax credit.
When Osborne says 85% will pay the same or less, he means basic rate tax payers with less than £5,000 dividend income will pay the same, and higher rate tax payers getting less than £5,000 dividend income will pay less.
Interestingly enough, Harper have just moved into a glam new HQ (under the Shard). And yes I know the old saw about snazzy new offices.
But I shouldn't worry (if you were):
"HarperCollins saw revenues in the quarter increase 14% to $354 million and profits increase 83% to $53 million, giving the publisher a 15% profit margin, enviable at any large publishing house"
They are one of the most successful publishers in the world.
Thank you, that is interesting. I wasn't in fact worried about HC, for two reasons: 1) I didn't suppose they were in trouble and 2) they're hardly a vital company to our economy if they were.
But I do hope that certain other sectors (no names, ample pack drill) don't end up losing sight of our problems by thinking just because they are not as horrendous as they were, they have gone away and we can party again.(Again, I know you weren't, but it's still a well-known phenomenon - the citizens of Britannia did something like that in the last decades of the fourth century, for example.)
No, because they are not illegal in this country. If they were, I would guess it would be a Home Office matter although if it had to be legislated for perhaps it would be done through the Department of Health.
First-cousin marriages, which are are legal in the UK, are practised within Britain’s Pakistani community, as well as among some Arab and African families. Medical data previously suggested that while British Pakistanis were responsible for 3 per cent of all births, they accounted for 30 per cent of British children born with a genetic illness.
I'm not sure that cousin marriages, by and of themselves, are necessarily a problem. It's prolonged marriage only within families that is the issue. That can lead to disasters, for example:
But I'm not sure how you would legislate to prevent first cousins whose own parents were also first cousins from marrying. A minimum number of great-grandparents? Might be hard to prove in the case of a second generation immigrant. Genetic testing? Yeah, that would be a really great idea and not at all intrusive or open to abuse.
It would be better to work on cultural change within the communities to minimise the risk of it happening in the first place. But that is difficult, expensive and slow, of course.
I'm not sure that cousin marriages, by and of themselves, are necessarily a problem. It's prolonged marriage only within families that is the issue. That can lead to disasters, for example:
But I'm not sure how you would legislate to prevent first cousins whose own parents were also first cousins from marrying. A minimum number of great-grandparents? Might be hard to prove in the case of a second generation immigrant. Genetic testing? Yeah, that would be a really great idea and not at all intrusive or open to abuse.
It would be better to work on cultural change within the communities to minimise the risk of it happening in the first place. But that is difficult, expensive and slow, of course.
There would, of course, be a large number of victims in the meantime. Given the scale of the problem - they're now contributing to about half of all genetic deformities - I would be comfortable banning cousin marriage for a generation, until the practice is broken.
Mr. JEO, whilst I wouldn't have a problem with that, enforcing it when lots of Pakistanis here fly back 'home', get married and come back would be difficult.
Edited extra bit: 'lots' in relative terms, I should say.
The noble Baroness Flather also raised concerns about Sharia law, under which women struggle to get a divorce.
She said: "I know I am probably talking about Muslims, but we now have this business of sharia marriages. It is appalling that the man can get a divorce by just asking for it, while a woman may have to wait years, and may still not get it. She can get a British divorce, but not a sharia divorce.
Noble Lords may ask, “Why does that matter?”, and I asked that of those women. They replied, “It means that we can’t go to Pakistan”.
"If they go there, the husband can come and take the children away, no matter what age they are. In any case, the husband can take the children from a sharia marriage when they are seven. All marriages should be automatically registered in this country. It is not fair to the women that some British women — they are British women when they come here — are treated in a different and unacceptable way from others."
" In what is thought to be the first case challenging an election result in Scotland since the 1960s, the Election Court will sit on 7-8 September in the Court of Session. A hearing to finalise arrangements, including whether the proceedings can be broadcast live, will take place on 31 August. "
" In what is thought to be the first case challenging an election result in Scotland since the 1960s, the Election Court will sit on 7-8 September in the Court of Session. A hearing to finalise arrangements, including whether the proceedings can be broadcast live, will take place on 31 August. "
Oh I do hope they agree to let it be broadcast. Should be proper fun.
Think I might pop my head around the door for that one.
Mr. JEO, whilst I wouldn't have a problem with that, enforcing it when lots of Pakistanis here fly back 'home', get married and come back would be difficult.
Edited extra bit: 'lots' in relative terms, I should say.
You could prevent that through the visa system, I suppose.
Mr. JEO, whilst I wouldn't have a problem with that, enforcing it when lots of Pakistanis here fly back 'home', get married and come back would be difficult.
Edited extra bit: 'lots' in relative terms, I should say.
You could prevent that through the visa system, I suppose.
How? I can foresee all sorts of problems if we start enforcing our own marriage laws on people from abroad. For example, what about the differing ages of lawful marriage between this country and France? Do we say that someone is not legally married if they hop across the channel, even if it is fully paid up and registered in their local town hall in a fellow EU member state?
" In what is thought to be the first case challenging an election result in Scotland since the 1960s, the Election Court will sit on 7-8 September in the Court of Session. A hearing to finalise arrangements, including whether the proceedings can be broadcast live, will take place on 31 August. "
" In what is thought to be the first case challenging an election result in Scotland since the 1960s, the Election Court will sit on 7-8 September in the Court of Session. A hearing to finalise arrangements, including whether the proceedings can be broadcast live, will take place on 31 August. "
Oh I do hope they agree to let it be broadcast. Should be proper fun.
Think I might pop my head around the door for that one.
Do learned friends get a special spot in court for interesting trials where they claim a research or academic interest or do you have to slum it with the hoi polloi?
Comments
The min wage increase is exceptionally good and well beyond what you would expect from a Tory chancellor who should be ideologically opposed to it (even if higher minimum wages are generally always good economically).
The min wage increase alone should add 5% to GDP by 2020 at an absolute minimum. The let down is that he isn't being ballsy enough to implement it immediately - that would have let him see it has no impact on jobs and let him push it up even higher.
'Warner will try to coax a mistake from the Cathedral Road End'
Well, on his bowling record, he has more chance of getting one from the CRE than from a batsman.
(Now I've said that, he'll take a hat trick...)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/11726584/Armed-police-swoop-on-suburban-sex-dungeon-after-noise-complaints.html
I am not saying HC is on the cusp of bankruptcy, of course - just that a lavish do isn't proof that it isn't.
Don't those people know how to use ball gags?
Honestly.
'A hole was discovered in the wall around Clifford Manor nudist colony this morning. Police are looking into it.'
EDIT: I'll allow this as a good one though as well:
'But officers were satisfied that no crime had taken place and did not feel the need to handcuff the dominatrices.'
I think the only people who will get a reduction in tax on dividends are those on over £42,385 with dividend income of less than £5,000 who will now pay nothing on their dividend income rather than 32.5% less 10% tax credit.
When Osborne says 85% will pay the same or less, he means basic rate tax payers with less than £5,000 dividend income will pay the same, and higher rate tax payers getting less than £5,000 dividend income will pay less.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/children/11723308/First-cousin-marriages-in-Pakistani-communities-leading-to-appalling-disabilities-among-children.html
But I do hope that certain other sectors (no names, ample pack drill) don't end up losing sight of our problems by thinking just because they are not as horrendous as they were, they have gone away and we can party again.(Again, I know you weren't, but it's still a well-known phenomenon - the citizens of Britannia did something like that in the last decades of the fourth century, for example.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_II_of_Spain
But I'm not sure how you would legislate to prevent first cousins whose own parents were also first cousins from marrying. A minimum number of great-grandparents? Might be hard to prove in the case of a second generation immigrant. Genetic testing? Yeah, that would be a really great idea and not at all intrusive or open to abuse.
It would be better to work on cultural change within the communities to minimise the risk of it happening in the first place. But that is difficult, expensive and slow, of course.
http://map.norsecorp.com/
Currently the chinese are attacking St.Louis.
Edited extra bit: 'lots' in relative terms, I should say.