politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » In the LAB leadership race Osbo’s budget looks set to help Yvette more than Andy, Jeremy or Liz
A big problem for all contenders is that there have been precious few opportunities since the general election defeat for them to get coverage away from the leadership campaign itself.
Good fighting article from Yvette - just the sort of thing her hubby would write......
I suspect that she wrote it herself. After all Ed is now a househusband so she has free childcare on tap. Just an ordinary working mum!
Buf it straIght out of Browns playbook, with no insight into how bloated welfare spending had become and no serious suggestion of how to balance the budget.
Cooper would be a gift to the Tories. Wooden style and vacuous approach to policy.
Yesterday could help revive Yvette’s flagging campaign
Morning all.
Ms Cooper was certainly first out of the blocks regarding the budget and appears to have left the other contenders standing at the start line. Her presence at Harperson's right arm yesterday will also be interpreted as significant imho. - No doubt her robust response will appeal to some within the party and may even strike accord with the intended gender target. Not sure however, that this will be enough to overcome her obvious problems, but then it certainly will not have done her chances any harm.
(Typo, - bit of a double negative, fourth paragraph concerning Kendal)
So this time yesterday PB Tories were telling us that reducing the tax breaks for buy-to-let merchants would be a mistake. How do they feel about it now?
Good fighting article from Yvette - just the sort of thing her hubby would write......
I suspect that she wrote it herself. After all Ed is now a househusband so she has free childcare on tap. Just an ordinary working mum!
Buf it straIght out of Browns playbook, with no insight into how bloated welfare spending had become and no serious suggestion of how to balance the budget.
Cooper would be a gift to the Tories. Wooden style and vacuous approach to policy.
The date for balancing the budget seems to be pretty elastic. Osborne keeps putting it back. That does sort of indicate that practically speaking it is not the hugely pressing issue we keep being told it is.
More generally, headlines are one thing, but it is the practical effects of the budget that will actually matter. For many families, the working tax credit cuts will have a greater impact than the tax cuts; while the very welcome acceptance of the need for a Living Wage seems to have manifested itself in something that is more akin to a rebranding and rebooting of the minimum wage.
As I said last night, Osborne's stroll into Labour territory and his conversion to Labour policies that Tories very recently derided should be a gift for a half decent opposition. That is the real test for the leadership candidates and, much more important, for the person who ends up winning.
So this time yesterday PB Tories were telling us that reducing the tax breaks for buy-to-let merchants would be a mistake. How do they feel about it now?
You should see what they used to say about a living wage, non-dom status and apprenticeship levies :-)
But that does not matter. Osborne has decided to adopt a number of Labour policies and Labour has to deal with it. There are plenty of major opportunities here for a smart opposition.
Lots for Labour to lavish praise on there. So immediately after the main statements had finished, Labour shadow chancellor Chris Leslie trotted over to the BBC to demonstrate to the country what a different kind of opposition looked like.
And to be honest, it looked remarkably like the old kind of opposition. Invited at the outset to list those measures Labour supported, Mr Leslie instead chose to attack the Government for the sake of it. George Osborne was all over the place. He’d been forced into a series of humiliating u-turns. The National Living Wage policy was just spin. His election victory had forced him to accept Labour was right on the economy.
OK, I slightly paraphrased Chris Leslie on that last bit. But only slightly.
So this time yesterday PB Tories were telling us that reducing the tax breaks for buy-to-let merchants would be a mistake. How do they feel about it now?
You should see what they used to say about a living wage, non-dom status and apprenticeship levies :-)
But that does not matter. Osborne has decided to adopt a number of Labour policies and Labour has to deal with it. There are plenty of major opportunities here for a smart opposition.
So this time yesterday PB Tories were telling us that reducing the tax breaks for buy-to-let merchants would be a mistake. How do they feel about it now?
There are plenty of major opportunities here for a smart opposition.
I do not see the relevance of personally having children or not. A good MP should know in general all about the circumstances of their electorate - however how many good MPs are there?
Cooper cannot shout, because she has a husband who has had a fat redundancy cheque and how much did they both make from switching properties - odd that has not been brought up - unless all candidates are guilty of that 'offence'.
So this time yesterday PB Tories were telling us that reducing the tax breaks for buy-to-let merchants would be a mistake. How do they feel about it now?
There are plenty of major opportunities here for a smart opposition.
And there the plan falls apart.
Yep, that is my fear. Labour has proved consistently over the last few years that it has become the Stupid Party. Yesterday could and should be a gift for Labour. The chances are that it will not be.
I do not see the relevance of personally having children or not. A good MP should know in general all about the circumstances of their electorate - however how many good MPs are there?
Cooper cannot shout, because she has a husband who has had a fat redundancy cheque and how much did they both make from switching properties - odd that has not been brought up - unless all candidates are guilty of that 'offence'.
Senior politicians in all parties have played the system to great personal profit.
Jeremy Corbyn was not entirely missing on Budget Day – Along with Natalie Bennett, he addressed a crowd of 100 or so anti-austerity protesters who had gathered in Parliament Square. The event, organised by the People’s Assembly Against Austerity, a loose coalition of activist groups and trade unions, on Wednesday evening, called “Austerity Kills”, featured a mass “die in” by protesters who lay on the grass of the square and the release of dozens of helium-filled balloons.
Stocks in Corbyn's leadership bid are set to rise no doubt…
As the Tories well know, when your opponent steals your clothes - it leaves you gaping and spluttering Unfair!! That Was Our Idea!!
But it doesn't matter - you look stupid if you try to oppose it, and neutered if you agree with it.
Getting all outraged and nitpicking highly marginal examples doesn't get you anywhere either. Just roll with it and concentrate on having something new to say. Fighting that battle is pointless unless it all goes horribly wrong [Gordon adopting Tory spending plans then dropping them].
So this time yesterday PB Tories were telling us that reducing the tax breaks for buy-to-let merchants would be a mistake. How do they feel about it now?
There are plenty of major opportunities here for a smart opposition.
I have ovaries. Vote for me, or be denounced as a woman-hating neanderthal!
If women had twice as good a deal as men, would anyone care? I have yet to see Cooper shrieking about the far higher rates of male suicide. Or the far better rates of mothers winning custody proceedings. Or getting cushy divorce settlements.
Jeremy Corbyn was not entirely missing on Budget Day – Along with Natalie Bennett, he addressed a crowd of 100 or so anti-austerity protesters who had gathered in Parliament Square. The event, organised by the People’s Assembly Against Austerity, a loose coalition of activist groups and trade unions, on Wednesday evening, called “Austerity Kills”, featured a mass “die in” by protesters who lay on the grass of the square and the release of dozens of helium-filled balloons.
Stocks in Corbyn's leadership bid are set to rise no doubt…
Bosses of Britain's biggest charities were forced into action yesterday amid a growing outcry over their use of 'boiler room' tactics to pressure the vulnerable. They were made to account for themselves after the revelations in the Daily Mail about the way they try to secure donations over the phone.
The growing scandal was also raised in Parliament yesterday as:
Oxfam's deputy chief executive had to explain her charity's policy of taking donations from people with dementia Save The Children promised it would no longer take part in cold-calling Cancer Research UK said it was suspending its relationship with GoGen, the call centre exposed by the Mail.
Harpal Kumar, chief executive of Cancer Research UK, wrote to all the charity's supporters to assure them the claims were being taken 'very seriously' and it would 'act swiftly and decisively' if evidence of wrongdoing was found... British Red Cross, Oxfam, the NSPCC and Macmillan were all caught hounding people on the Government's 'no-call' list, the Telephone Preference Service, as part of the undercover investigation by the Mail.
The charities are also accused of taking donations over the phone from people with Alzheimer's and other forms of dementia, and using 'brutal' tactics to pressure people to donate.
Turning to more important matters, isn't today when the Greek Government presents its new proposals? Can't imagine the banks have much cash left, even with rationing withdrawals.
Mr. Root, one of the bigwigs there was involved with some interesting timing, I think.
McMillian do sterling work for those affected by cancer, but I don't like their methods. They need a clear out. Someone must have known what was going on. I don't like the tear jerking adverts charities are currently running on tv either.
Seconds out after midday this week, Ed Miliband came out swinging straight away on the issue of welfare reforms, quoting from a press release issued by Macmillan Cancer Support to back up his thrice-repeated line of questioning to the PM on the emotive issue of benefit support for cancer patients, name-checking the cancer charity three times in five minutes of political primetime TV.
At 12.10pm an emailed press release from Macmillan Cancer Support hit journalist's inboxes to tie-in with what was clearly a co-ordinated political move. As the half-hour of PMQs wrapped up at 12.33pm, Andrew Neil's Daily Politics show began the post-match, blow-by-blow analysis of the preceding political pugilism. By 12.35pm Mike Hobday, head of campaigns, policy and public affairs for Macmillan Cancer Support, was authoritatively giving backup to the claims made unusually passionately by the Labour party leader. Three minutes later at 12.38pm, a text message arrives on my phone telling me Hobday was an unsuccessful Labour parliamentary candidate at the general election.
I don't tend to FFW over adverts - unless they're that annoying Galaxy one with Audrey Hepburn or charity ones with that portentous voiceover and made up stories about Kwani or whatever. It's so OTT. IIRC the charities get free advert time - I can only assume they all use the same agency to make these dismal begging videos too.
Mr. Root, one of the bigwigs there was involved with some interesting timing, I think.
McMillian do sterling work for those affected by cancer, but I don't like their methods. They need a clear out. Someone must have known what was going on. I don't like the tear jerking adverts charities are currently running on tv either.
Turning to more important matters, isn't today when the Greek Government presents its new proposals? Can't imagine the banks have much cash left, even with rationing withdrawals.
It's interesting to look at how the Americans are viewing this - it's even distracting them from China. They all seem completely baffled by how it happened in the first place.
The Wall Street Journal has an interesting if sometimes rather caustic take on events:
The Washington Post, hardly noted as a bastion of the radical right, is rather more scathing and seems to sign up to divers conspiracy theories about how and why this is happening:
Jeremy Corbyn was not entirely missing on Budget Day – Along with Natalie Bennett, he addressed a crowd of 100 or so anti-austerity protesters who had gathered in Parliament Square. The event, organised by the People’s Assembly Against Austerity, a loose coalition of activist groups and trade unions, on Wednesday evening, called “Austerity Kills”, featured a mass “die in” by protesters who lay on the grass of the square and the release of dozens of helium-filled balloons.
Stocks in Corbyn's leadership bid are set to rise no doubt…
Perhaps they were put off travelling to London by the thoughts of the rail strike today - innocent face.
Bosses of Britain's biggest charities were forced into action yesterday amid a growing outcry over their use of 'boiler room' tactics to pressure the vulnerable. They were made to account for themselves after the revelations in the Daily Mail about the way they try to secure donations over the phone.
The growing scandal was also raised in Parliament yesterday as:
Oxfam's deputy chief executive had to explain her charity's policy of taking donations from people with dementia Save The Children promised it would no longer take part in cold-calling Cancer Research UK said it was suspending its relationship with GoGen, the call centre exposed by the Mail.
Harpal Kumar, chief executive of Cancer Research UK, wrote to all the charity's supporters to assure them the claims were being taken 'very seriously' and it would 'act swiftly and decisively' if evidence of wrongdoing was found... British Red Cross, Oxfam, the NSPCC and Macmillan were all caught hounding people on the Government's 'no-call' list, the Telephone Preference Service, as part of the undercover investigation by the Mail.
The charities are also accused of taking donations over the phone from people with Alzheimer's and other forms of dementia, and using 'brutal' tactics to pressure people to donate.
Whenever I'm phoned up or accosted by these chuggers, I just speak to them endlessly in Welsh. It's amazing how much it confuses them. The high point was once, when I was in Lancaster, when somebody to started to reply in Polish (I had no idea my Welsh sounded like Polish, but hey). That was an interesting conversation...
I really don't think that oppositions get anywhere by saying, "that was our idea", or "it's not fair". I am not sure that I agree with Southam Observer that there are lots of opportunities here for even a clever opposition.
Osborne has done the same as Brown used to do to the Tories. By appearing to move to the centre ground he leaves them very few places to go and with a tendency to go to the extremes simply to differentiate themselves.
This is the challenge that the Labour leadership contenders face and it is not an easy one. I am not sure that playing the gender card is a great angle but at least Cooper has found one and been heard. What angle are the others going to find?
At the election and even in March Osborne was adamant that in the great rebalancing we had already had the large tax increases (principally through VAT and the more aggressive charges on higher tax payers) and it was time for spending to bear the strain. What is slightly odd about yesterday is that he seems to have changed his mind. There will be considerably more taxes in this Parliament, about £45bn more, and more spending too.
The additional spending largely arises because the changes to welfare have been slowed down considerably with the current entitlements for existing children, for example, largely protected. It is very difficult for the Labour party to effectively attack more spending.
Labour also want to get away from Ed's anti business agenda which so damaged them in the election. Nevertheless, if I was advising Kendall in particular I would go after the CT cuts. Is it right that big corporations should be able to make so many profits out of this country and pay so little tax on it? Is it right that tax should be reduced when working benefits for their poorly paid employees are being cut? Being perceived to be on the right of Labour I think she could be more credible and get a better hearing on this, especially since she will be more straightforward about welcoming some of the measures than, say, Burnham.
Mr. Doethur, you found a practical use for Welsh in modern day Britain, you genius, you!
[Well, there's that, and stealing bits of Welsh to use in a forthcoming fantasy novel which everyone really ought to buy when it's eventually released].
I do not see the relevance of personally having children or not. A good MP should know in general all about the circumstances of their electorate - however how many good MPs are there?
Cooper cannot shout, because she has a husband who has had a fat redundancy cheque and how much did they both make from switching properties - odd that has not been brought up - unless all candidates are guilty of that 'offence'.
Senior politicians in all parties have played the system to great personal profit.
As did many junior ones - no doubt following the example of their seniors and 'betters'?. Kendall was elected in 2010 so may not have been 'infected', but the others are of longer standing and Cooper's case is well known. Have the gloves not been taken off yet?
Mr. Doethur, you found a practical use for Welsh in modern day Britain, you genius, you!
[Well, there's that, and stealing bits of Welsh to use in a forthcoming fantasy novel which everyone really ought to buy when it's eventually released].
There's one other highly practical use that isn't much advertised. The army used Welsh radio operators in Afghanistan to make signals between units - on the basis that the Taleban would be unable to understand a word they were saying. I gather they used codes as well (even my mind boggles at the thought of trying to crack a code in Welsh).
I think they got the idea from Lloyd George in Paris in 1919. He knew his phone line was being tapped, so told London to put his Harlech-born private secretary on the line, and they talked for an hour in Welsh, secure in the knowledge that no one from any of the other powers would understand them. Apparently there were a lot of very annoyed-looking attachés wandering around that day!
Bosses of Britain's biggest charities were forced into action yesterday amid a growing outcry over their use of 'boiler room' tactics to pressure the vulnerable. They were made to account for themselves after the revelations in the Daily Mail about the way they try to secure donations over the phone.
The growing scandal was also raised in Parliament yesterday as:
Oxfam's deputy chief executive had to explain her charity's policy of taking donations from people with dementia Save The Children promised it would no longer take part in cold-calling Cancer Research UK said it was suspending its relationship with GoGen, the call centre exposed by the Mail.
Harpal Kumar, chief executive of Cancer Research UK, wrote to all the charity's supporters to assure them the claims were being taken 'very seriously' and it would 'act swiftly and decisively' if evidence of wrongdoing was found... British Red Cross, Oxfam, the NSPCC and Macmillan were all caught hounding people on the Government's 'no-call' list, the Telephone Preference Service, as part of the undercover investigation by the Mail.
The charities are also accused of taking donations over the phone from people with Alzheimer's and other forms of dementia, and using 'brutal' tactics to pressure people to donate.
Whenever I'm phoned up or accosted by these chuggers, I just speak to them endlessly in Welsh. It's amazing how much it confuses them. The high point was once, when I was in Lancaster, when somebody to started to reply in Polish (I had no idea my Welsh sounded like Polish, but hey). That was an interesting conversation...
If Cooper comes in it'll be my biggest ever profit on a single political market. Andy would also be a good result, I'm keeping Corbyn onside and am small red Liz.
Of course I may adjust my position between now and the vote
I do not see the relevance of personally having children or not. A good MP should know in general all about the circumstances of their electorate - however how many good MPs are there?
Cooper cannot shout, because she has a husband who has had a fat redundancy cheque and how much did they both make from switching properties - odd that has not been brought up - unless all candidates are guilty of that 'offence'.
Senior politicians in all parties have played the system to great personal profit.
As did many junior ones - no doubt following the example of their seniors and 'betters'?. Kendall was elected in 2010 so may not have been 'infected', but the others are of longer standing and Cooper's case is well known. Have the gloves not been taken off yet?
Burnham, of course, was the man who infamously told the Fees Office that if his er, rather inventive expenses claim was not settled his wife might divorce him.
Corbyn would surely be exempt too, as a London MP not eligible for allowances?
Labour need to make sure that they're not playing on George Osborne's terrain. "It was our idea" makes George Osborne look unideological, which would be an absurd response for one of the most ideological budgets in living memory.
They would do better to attack it as showing that George Osborne didn't understand what was good about these ideas, taking measures designed to help the poor and reducing their living standards, all in the name of a mad obsession with a low tax economy. Describing someone as stupid is much more lethal than describing them as wicked.
Mr. Doethur, you found a practical use for Welsh in modern day Britain, you genius, you!
[Well, there's that, and stealing bits of Welsh to use in a forthcoming fantasy novel which everyone really ought to buy when it's eventually released].
There's one other highly practical use that isn't much advertised. The army used Welsh radio operators in Afghanistan to make signals between units - on the basis that the Taleban would be unable to understand a word they were saying. I gather they used codes as well (even my mind boggles at the thought of trying to crack a code in Welsh).
I think they got the idea from Lloyd George in Paris in 1919. He knew his phone line was being tapped, so told London to put his Harlech-born private secretary on the line, and they talked for an hour in Welsh, secure in the knowledge that no one from any of the other powers would understand them. Apparently there were a lot of very annoyed-looking attachés wandering around that day!
Mr. Antifrank, not sure a party that had Miliband as its leader for five years will get away with calling Osborne stupid just yet.
It's an attempt that has to be made.
I dislike much of this budget, but I'm in awe of George Osborne's shamelessness and sheer low cunning. It was politics at its most ruthless, with the Chancellor bayoneting the seriously wounded on the Labour benches.
I really don't think that oppositions get anywhere by saying, "that was our idea", or "it's not fair". I am not sure that I agree with Southam Observer that there are lots of opportunities here for even a clever opposition.
Osborne has done the same as Brown used to do to the Tories. By appearing to move to the centre ground he leaves them very few places to go and with a tendency to go to the extremes simply to differentiate themselves.
This is the challenge that the Labour leadership contenders face and it is not an easy one. I am not sure that playing the gender card is a great angle but at least Cooper has found one and been heard. What angle are the others going to find?
At the election and even in March Osborne was adamant that in the great rebalancing we had already had the large tax increases (principally through VAT and the more aggressive charges on higher tax payers) and it was time for spending to bear the strain. What is slightly odd about yesterday is that he seems to have changed his mind. There will be considerably more taxes in this Parliament, about £45bn more, and more spending too.
The additional spending largely arises because the changes to welfare have been slowed down considerably with the current entitlements for existing children, for example, largely protected. It is very difficult for the Labour party to effectively attack more spending.
Labour also want to get away from Ed's anti business agenda which so damaged them in the election. Nevertheless, if I was advising Kendall in particular I would go after the CT cuts. Is it right that big corporations should be able to make so many profits out of this country and pay so little tax on it? Is it right that tax should be reduced when working benefits for their poorly paid employees are being cut? Being perceived to be on the right of Labour I think she could be more credible and get a better hearing on this, especially since she will be more straightforward about welcoming some of the measures than, say, Burnham.
But its not easy.
The EU average for CT is 22.15%. With Ireland at 12.5%, Hungary at 19% as is Poland. FYI Taiwan is 17%, as is Singapore and China is 20%.
Many companies did put their HQs in Ireland for CT reasons as do others in Lichtenstein 12.5% ad Switzerland 17.92%.
I do not see the relevance of personally having children or not. A good MP should know in general all about the circumstances of their electorate - however how many good MPs are there?
Cooper cannot shout, because she has a husband who has had a fat redundancy cheque and how much did they both make from switching properties - odd that has not been brought up - unless all candidates are guilty of that 'offence'.
Senior politicians in all parties have played the system to great personal profit.
As did many junior ones - no doubt following the example of their seniors and 'betters'?. Kendall was elected in 2010 so may not have been 'infected', but the others are of longer standing and Cooper's case is well known. Have the gloves not been taken off yet?
Burnham, of course, was the man who infamously told the Fees Office that if his er, rather inventive expenses claim was not settled his wife might divorce him.
Corbyn would surely be exempt too, as a London MP not eligible for allowances?
Labour need to make sure that they're not playing on George Osborne's terrain. "It was our idea" makes George Osborne look unideological, which would be an absurd response for one of the most ideological budgets in living memory.
They would do better to attack it as showing that George Osborne didn't understand what was good about these ideas, taking measures designed to help the poor and reducing their living standards, all in the name of a mad obsession with a low tax economy. Describing someone as stupid is much more lethal than describing them as wicked.
What did you think was ideological about it? There was plenty of rhetoric but the actual measures seemed like the Coalition had never ended to me.
Labour need to make sure that they're not playing on George Osborne's terrain. "It was our idea" makes George Osborne look unideological, which would be an absurd response for one of the most ideological budgets in living memory.
They would do better to attack it as showing that George Osborne didn't understand what was good about these ideas, taking measures designed to help the poor and reducing their living standards, all in the name of a mad obsession with a low tax economy. Describing someone as stupid is much more lethal than describing them as wicked.
I like that they've gone for the Bonnie Langford option.
I really don't think that oppositions get anywhere by saying, "that was our idea", or "it's not fair". I am not sure that I agree with Southam Observer that there are lots of opportunities here for even a clever opposition.
Osborne has done the same as Brown used to do to the Tories. By appearing to move to the centre ground he leaves them very few places to go and with a tendency to go to the extremes simply to differentiate themselves.
This is the challenge that the Labour leadership contenders face and it is not an easy one. I am not sure that playing the gender card is a great angle but at least Cooper has found one and been heard. What angle are the others going to find?
At the election and even in March Osborne was adamant that in the great rebalancing we had already had the large tax increases (principally through VAT and the more aggressive charges on higher tax payers) and it was time for spending to bear the strain. What is slightly odd about yesterday is that he seems to have changed his mind. There will be considerably more taxes in this Parliament, about £45bn more, and more spending too.
The additional spending largely arises because the changes to welfare have been slowed down considerably with the current entitlements for existing children, for example, largely protected. It is very difficult for the Labour party to effectively attack more spending.
Labour also want to get away from Ed's anti business agenda which so damaged them in the election. Nevertheless, if I was advising Kendall in particular I would go after the CT cuts. Is it right that big corporations should be able to make so many profits out of this country and pay so little tax on it? Is it right that tax should be reduced when working benefits for their poorly paid employees are being cut? Being perceived to be on the right of Labour I think she could be more credible and get a better hearing on this, especially since she will be more straightforward about welcoming some of the measures than, say, Burnham.
But its not easy.
The EU average for CT is 22.15%. With Ireland at 12.5%, Hungary at 19% as is Poland. FYI Taiwan is 17%, as is Singapore and China is 20%.
Many companies did put their HQs in Ireland for CT reasons as do others in Lichtenstein 12.5% ad Switzerland 17.92%.
I am not saying he is wrong to do this. What I am saying is that it is a possible angle for Labour candidates to take.
Labour need to make sure that they're not playing on George Osborne's terrain. "It was our idea" makes George Osborne look unideological, which would be an absurd response for one of the most ideological budgets in living memory.
They would do better to attack it as showing that George Osborne didn't understand what was good about these ideas, taking measures designed to help the poor and reducing their living standards, all in the name of a mad obsession with a low tax economy. Describing someone as stupid is much more lethal than describing them as wicked.
Labour need to make sure that they're not playing on George Osborne's terrain. "It was our idea" makes George Osborne look unideological, which would be an absurd response for one of the most ideological budgets in living memory.
They would do better to attack it as showing that George Osborne didn't understand what was good about these ideas, taking measures designed to help the poor and reducing their living standards, all in the name of a mad obsession with a low tax economy. Describing someone as stupid is much more lethal than describing them as wicked.
What did you think was ideological about it? There was plenty of rhetoric but the actual measures seemed like the Coalition had never ended to me.
The rhetoric is everything. The aim to shift support for the low paid from benefits to pay is seismic. It will define politics for the next few years.
This wasn't a low tax budget and one of the things that George Osborne was most shameless about was abandoning his differentiator on spending plans (no one will care now). But there is no chance of Joe Public listening to that sort of analysis.
Now Osborne in car crash on R4, sympathetic question and he just warbled on!
GOICWNBPM
George Osborne has the same problem as Gordon Brown -- after years of ducking interviews, he has no experience of being interviewed. It's a learned skill. If Osborne puts himself about a bit, he will get better at it.
I really don't think that oppositions get anywhere by saying, "that was our idea", or "it's not fair". I am not sure that I agree with Southam Observer that there are lots of opportunities here for even a clever opposition.
Osborne has done the same as Brown used to do to the Tories. By appearing to move to the centre ground he leaves them very few places to go and with a tendency to go to the extremes simply to differentiate themselves.
This is the challenge that the Labour leadership contenders face and it is not an easy one. I am not sure that playing the gender card is a great angle but at least Cooper has found one and been heard. What angle are the others going to find?
At the election and even in March Osborne was adamant that in the great rebalancing we had already had the large tax increases (principally through VAT and the more aggressive charges on higher tax payers) and it was time for spending to bear the strain. What is slightly odd about yesterday is that he seems to have changed his mind. There will be considerably more taxes in this Parliament, about £45bn more, and more spending too.
The additional spending largely arises because the changes to welfare have been slowed down considerably with the current entitlements for existing children, for example, largely protected. It is very difficult for the Labour party to effectively attack more spending.
Labour also want to get away from Ed's anti business agenda which so damaged them in the election. Nevertheless, if I was advising Kendall in particular I would go after the CT cuts. Is it right that big corporations should be able to make so many profits out of this country and pay so little tax on it? Is it right that tax should be reduced when working benefits for their poorly paid employees are being cut? Being perceived to be on the right of Labour I think she could be more credible and get a better hearing on this, especially since she will be more straightforward about welcoming some of the measures than, say, Burnham.
But its not easy.
The EU average for CT is 22.15%. With Ireland at 12.5%, Hungary at 19% as is Poland. FYI Taiwan is 17%, as is Singapore and China is 20%.
Many companies did put their HQs in Ireland for CT reasons as do others in Lichtenstein 12.5% ad Switzerland 17.92%.
I am not saying he is wrong to do this. What I am saying is that it is a possible angle for Labour candidates to take.
And what conclusions would you expect them to draw. That we should have the high CT rates like France and so lose multinational company HQs. With those like HSBC and others thinking of relocating - how will that benefit the UK. A lot of UK industry and business is being squeezed on price by the Far East and every little helps.
Labour need to make sure that they're not playing on George Osborne's terrain. "It was our idea" makes George Osborne look unideological, which would be an absurd response for one of the most ideological budgets in living memory.
They would do better to attack it as showing that George Osborne didn't understand what was good about these ideas, taking measures designed to help the poor and reducing their living standards, all in the name of a mad obsession with a low tax economy. Describing someone as stupid is much more lethal than describing them as wicked.
What did you think was ideological about it? There was plenty of rhetoric but the actual measures seemed like the Coalition had never ended to me.
The rhetoric is everything. The aim to shift support for the low paid from benefits to pay is seismic. It will define politics for the next few years.
This wasn't a low tax budget and one of the things that George Osborne was most shameless about was abandoning his differentiator on spending plans (no one will care now). But there is no chance of Joe Public listening to that sort of analysis.
I certainly agree that we are seeing the start of a trend in putting the costs of employment back on the employer. I suspect increases in the national living wage, as we will have to learn to call it, will not be a one off. Labour need to get ahead of the curve on this now.
I also agree that this was not a low tax budget, quite the reverse in fact, so the attack on Osborne of trying to shrink the State back to the 30s (always spurious of course) is dead too.
Osborne's political genius is the way that he shapes the agenda to discussion points that give his opponents nowhere obvious to go but his economic policies have been far more pragmatic.
He responded to the slow down in the EZ by effectively adopting spending plans that were within spitting distance of what Balls had advocated. He used the Lib Dems as cover for not being more radical on spending. Even without that cover he has done the same again and used the rhetoric to cover his tracks.
Brown did something similar of course but his policies were always much worse than he was in fact claiming. Osborne has a substantially better record.
The other angle which I'd press would be the return of the poverty trap, as I said on a previous thread. There are a lot of people on JSA who have difficulty in getting jobs for all kinds of reasons - education, health, minor past offences, etc. - which aren't insuperable to working (so you can't get a disability benefit) but make job-chasing dispiriting in practice. The effect of the changes is that (a) it'll be that much harder to get work because of the substantially higher minimum wage and (b) it'll be hardly worth doing when you succeed because of the disappearing tax credits, so your marginal tax/benefit withdrawal rate will be 90+%. (a) was a risk that Labour's policy also entailed, but (b) is a new aspect, and will have the effect of enlarging the pool of people who are demoralised and simply give up doing more than going through the motions.
The solution to that could in theory be universal credit, but I don't see that becoming the norm any time soon.
I really don't think that oppositions get anywhere by saying, "that was our idea", or "it's not fair". I am not sure that I agree with Southam Observer that there are lots of opportunities here for even a clever opposition.
Osborne has done the same as Brown used to do to the Tories. By appearing to move to the centre ground he leaves them very few places to go and with a tendency to go to the extremes simply to differentiate themselves.
This is the challenge that the Labour leadership contenders face and it is not an easy one. I am not sure that playing the gender card is a great angle but at least Cooper has found one and been heard. What angle are the others going to find?
snip
Labour also want to get away from Ed's anti business agenda which so damaged them in the election. Nevertheless, if I was advising Kendall in particular I would go after the CT cuts. Is it right that big corporations should be able to make so many profits out of this country and pay so little tax on it? Is it right that tax should be reduced when working benefits for their poorly paid employees are being cut? Being perceived to be on the right of Labour I think she could be more credible and get a better hearing on this, especially since she will be more straightforward about welcoming some of the measures than, say, Burnham.
But its not easy.
The EU average for CT is 22.15%. With Ireland at 12.5%, Hungary at 19% as is Poland. FYI Taiwan is 17%, as is Singapore and China is 20%.
Many companies did put their HQs in Ireland for CT reasons as do others in Lichtenstein 12.5% ad Switzerland 17.92%.
I am not saying he is wrong to do this. What I am saying is that it is a possible angle for Labour candidates to take.
And what conclusions would you expect them to draw. That we should have the high CT rates like France and so lose multinational company HQs. With those like HSBC and others thinking of relocating - how will that benefit the UK. A lot of UK industry and business is being squeezed on price by the Far East and every little helps.
The EU average for CT is 22.15%. With Ireland at 12.5%, Hungary at 19% as is Poland. FYI Taiwan is 17%, as is Singapore and China is 20%.
Many companies did put their HQs in Ireland for CT reasons as do others in Lichtenstein 12.5% ad Switzerland 17.92%.
I am not saying he is wrong to do this. What I am saying is that it is a possible angle for Labour candidates to take.
And what conclusions would you expect them to draw. That we should have the high CT rates like France and so lose multinational company HQs. With those like HSBC and others thinking of relocating - how will that benefit the UK. A lot of UK industry and business is being squeezed on price by the Far East and every little helps.
It does not need detailed analysis. It needs a contrast and compare. Tax cuts for rich corporations vs spending cuts on poorly paid workers. He has his priorities all wrong etc.
The other angle which I'd press would be the return of the poverty trap, as I said on a previous thread. There are a lot of people on JSA who have difficulty in getting jobs for all kinds of reasons - education, health, minor past offences, etc. - which aren't insuperable to working (so you can't get a disability benefit) but make job-chasing dispiriting in practice. The effect of the changes is that (a) it'll be that much harder to get work because of the substantially higher minimum wage and (b) it'll be hardly worth doing when you succeed because of the disappearing tax credits, so your marginal tax/benefit withdrawal rate will be 90+%. (a) was a risk that Labour's policy also entailed, but (b) is a new aspect, and will have the effect of enlarging the pool of people who are demoralised and simply give up doing more than going through the motions.
The solution to that could in theory be universal credit, but I don't see that becoming the norm any time soon.
Not sure that is quite right Nick. The policy is to make work pay compared with not working. A higher minimum wage helps with that. Even although working benefits are being reduced they remain considerably more generous than non working benefits. So work does pay.
Where you are right is that once you are working sufficient hours to obtain in work benefits the incentive to work more hours is diminished and it is hard to break free of a certain standard of living without working massively more hours and moving beyond benefit altogether. The marginal rates for those on in work benefits are severe. Whether Universal Credit will be able to solve that problem I have my doubts about.
The EU average for CT is 22.15%. With Ireland at 12.5%, Hungary at 19% as is Poland. FYI Taiwan is 17%, as is Singapore and China is 20%.
Many companies did put their HQs in Ireland for CT reasons as do others in Lichtenstein 12.5% ad Switzerland 17.92%.
I am not saying he is wrong to do this. What I am saying is that it is a possible angle for Labour candidates to take.
And what conclusions would you expect them to draw. That we should have the high CT rates like France and so lose multinational company HQs. With those like HSBC and others thinking of relocating - how will that benefit the UK. A lot of UK industry and business is being squeezed on price by the Far East and every little helps.
It does not need detailed analysis. It needs a contrast and compare. Tax cuts for rich corporations vs spending cuts on poorly paid workers. He has his priorities all wrong etc.
If corporations move away from the UK, then fewer jobs and less tax income - I presume that you are in favour of that or would not even mention it.
Of course in the final analysis corporations don't pay or suffer tax at all. Their employees, shareholders and bondholders do. We could set corporation tax to zero. All the cashflow of the company would go somewhere - to employees, owners or lenders - and that cashflow can be taxed.
In a competitive world we need absolutely to attract businesses and investment and lowering CT is a good thing in and of itself.
The solution to that could in theory be universal credit, but I don't see that becoming the norm any time soon.
The presumed purpose of this is to get to Universal Credit, precisely to prevent the kind of problems you mention.
Many changes are leading into this, for example the requirement that employers now submit PAYE figures electronically every month, so that records for each individual are always up to date.
So this time yesterday PB Tories were telling us that reducing the tax breaks for buy-to-let merchants would be a mistake. How do they feel about it now?
You should see what they used to say about a living wage, non-dom status and apprenticeship levies :-)
But that does not matter. Osborne has decided to adopt a number of Labour policies and Labour has to deal with it. There are plenty of major opportunities here for a smart opposition.
Hopi is missing the point. It's not that at the economic theory level GO has done this or that which gives Lab the opportunity to do that or this.
The budget addressed the two critical perception issues: nastiness & incompetence.
GO, regardless of the worked examples, has taken a giant leap towards detoxification with the living wage. Lab, meanwhile, remains in the catch-22 situation of being considered economically incompetent and therefore of not being given the opportunity to prove otherwise.
It will mean, events notwithstanding and of course there are always those, that Lab will have to wait until the Cons tire or sleaze themselves out, round about 2025-ish, before they can regain power and implement this infrastructure spending programme or that further tax reform.
Of course in the final analysis corporations don't pay or suffer tax at all. Their employees, shareholders and bondholders do. We could set corporation tax to zero. All the cashflow of the company would go somewhere - to employees, owners or lenders - and that cashflow can be taxed.
In a competitive world we need absolutely to attract businesses and investment and lowering CT is a good thing in and of itself.
Mr. Doethur, you found a practical use for Welsh in modern day Britain, you genius, you!
[Well, there's that, and stealing bits of Welsh to use in a forthcoming fantasy novel which everyone really ought to buy when it's eventually released].
There's one other highly practical use that isn't much advertised. The army used Welsh radio operators in Afghanistan to make signals between units - on the basis that the Taleban would be unable to understand a word they were saying. I gather they used codes as well (even my mind boggles at the thought of trying to crack a code in Welsh).
I think they got the idea from Lloyd George in Paris in 1919. He knew his phone line was being tapped, so told London to put his Harlech-born private secretary on the line, and they talked for an hour in Welsh, secure in the knowledge that no one from any of the other powers would understand them. Apparently there were a lot of very annoyed-looking attachés wandering around that day!
Not only Welsh speakers were employed to fox French Intelligence, Ll G also encouraged the use of Hindi speaking Army Officers for sensitive calls.
Of course in the final analysis corporations don't pay or suffer tax at all. Their employees, shareholders and bondholders do. We could set corporation tax to zero. All the cashflow of the company would go somewhere - to employees, owners or lenders - and that cashflow can be taxed.
In a competitive world we need absolutely to attract businesses and investment and lowering CT is a good thing in and of itself.
Except, many businesses in UK are foreign owned and under your suggestion we'd see little tax. Businesses need infrastructure and a healthy, educated workforce.
As the deadline approaches for Greece to deliver its plan A later today, Greek media are reporting that a team of French experts have been sent to Athens to help them write it.
Greek media are also reporting that Greece’s reform plan could include €12bn of cuts and tax rises - several billion euros more than previously expected. And that’s because of the deterioration in the Greek economy, which plunged back into recession this year.
Of course in the final analysis corporations don't pay or suffer tax at all. Their employees, shareholders and bondholders do. We could set corporation tax to zero. All the cashflow of the company would go somewhere - to employees, owners or lenders - and that cashflow can be taxed.
In a competitive world we need absolutely to attract businesses and investment and lowering CT is a good thing in and of itself.
Except, many businesses in UK are foreign owned and under your suggestion we'd see little tax. Businesses need infrastructure and a healthy, educated workforce.
Incoherent. Every UK company's retained cashflow goes to its employees or owners or lenders - even if the owners or lenders are foreign. Dividend payments can be taxed.
Of course in the final analysis corporations don't pay or suffer tax at all. Their employees, shareholders and bondholders do. We could set corporation tax to zero. All the cashflow of the company would go somewhere - to employees, owners or lenders - and that cashflow can be taxed.
In a competitive world we need absolutely to attract businesses and investment and lowering CT is a good thing in and of itself.
That assumes that the money remains in our system. If the profits earned in the UK float offshore untaxed we lose out. Hence the google tax, one of Osborne's more radical ideas that seems to be bringing those profits back onshore again to some degree.
But with so much of our economy now in foreign ownership this is something we have to be constantly vigilant about. Hence the complicated stuff about foreign owned property yesterday.
Of course, as in most things economic, the Chancellor is far less powerful than he appears and has to ensure that the UK is internationally competitive, hence the cuts in CT (I have given up trying to explain to Financier that this was not my view, simply a possible line for a Labour candidate to take). But what we ultimately give to international business is access to the fourth or fifth largest economy in the world. There does need to be a price on the door, especially for profit earned on the way out.
As the deadline approaches for Greece to deliver its plan A later today, Greek media are reporting that a team of French experts have been sent to Athens to help them write it.
Greek media are also reporting that Greece’s reform plan could include €12bn of cuts and tax rises - several billion euros more than previously expected. And that’s because of the deterioration in the Greek economy, which plunged back into recession this year.
It is very hard to believe that the Greek economy has not shrunk by a measureable percentage in the last fortnight alone. I think their economy will inevitably finish this year smaller than it started.
@BBCGavinHewitt: Bundesbank chief Weidmann:ECB shouldn't provide any more emergency funding to Greece. Should be limits on what Central bank does #Greece
Mr. Antifrank, not sure a party that had Miliband as its leader for five years will get away with calling Osborne stupid just yet.
It's an attempt that has to be made.
I dislike much of this budget, but I'm in awe of George Osborne's shamelessness and sheer low cunning. It was politics at its most ruthless, with the Chancellor bayoneting the seriously wounded on the Labour benches.
Of course in the final analysis corporations don't pay or suffer tax at all. Their employees, shareholders and bondholders do. We could set corporation tax to zero. All the cashflow of the company would go somewhere - to employees, owners or lenders - and that cashflow can be taxed.
In a competitive world we need absolutely to attract businesses and investment and lowering CT is a good thing in and of itself.
That assumes that the money remains in our system. If the profits earned in the UK float offshore untaxed we lose out. Hence the google tax, one of Osborne's more radical ideas that seems to be bringing those profits back onshore again to some degree.
But with so much of our economy now in foreign ownership this is something we have to be constantly vigilant about. Hence the complicated stuff about foreign owned property yesterday.
Of course, as in most things economic, the Chancellor is far less powerful than he appears and has to ensure that the UK is internationally competitive, hence the cuts in CT (I have given up trying to explain to Financier that this was not my view, simply a possible line for a Labour candidate to take). But what we ultimately give to international business is access to the fourth or fifth largest economy in the world. There does need to be a price on the door, especially for profit earned on the way out.
What I was trying to point out that it was not a very valid line for Labour to use as it could be shot down easily.
Of course in the final analysis corporations don't pay or suffer tax at all. Their employees, shareholders and bondholders do. We could set corporation tax to zero. All the cashflow of the company would go somewhere - to employees, owners or lenders - and that cashflow can be taxed.
In a competitive world we need absolutely to attract businesses and investment and lowering CT is a good thing in and of itself.
That assumes that the money remains in our system. If the profits earned in the UK float offshore untaxed we lose out. Hence the google tax, one of Osborne's more radical ideas that seems to be bringing those profits back onshore again to some degree.
But with so much of our economy now in foreign ownership this is something we have to be constantly vigilant about. Hence the complicated stuff about foreign owned property yesterday.
Of course, as in most things economic, the Chancellor is far less powerful than he appears and has to ensure that the UK is internationally competitive, hence the cuts in CT (I have given up trying to explain to Financier that this was not my view, simply a possible line for a Labour candidate to take). But what we ultimately give to international business is access to the fourth or fifth largest economy in the world. There does need to be a price on the door, especially for profit earned on the way out.
Taxing dividend payments and earnings is ALOT easier and harder to avoid than taxing profits on complicated corporate structures. I'm not kidding. We should simply abolish CT altogether and tax UK companies' cashflow as employee earnings or owners' dividends or lenders' repayments. Much, much harder to avoid tax. And every company in the world would want to relocate here.
Labour seem to be clutching at straws to find some attack lines for this budget. Just as Balls used to do. The emphasis on working mums is a slimy nudge at Liz, but from the Balls camp of McBride should we expect any less?
Of course in the final analysis corporations don't pay or suffer tax at all. Their employees, shareholders and bondholders do. We could set corporation tax to zero. All the cashflow of the company would go somewhere - to employees, owners or lenders - and that cashflow can be taxed.
In a competitive world we need absolutely to attract businesses and investment and lowering CT is a good thing in and of itself.
That assumes that the money remains in our system. If the profits earned in the UK float offshore untaxed we lose out. Hence the google tax, one of Osborne's more radical ideas that seems to be bringing those profits back onshore again to some degree.
But with so much of our economy now in foreign ownership this is something we have to be constantly vigilant about. Hence the complicated stuff about foreign owned property yesterday.
Of course, as in most things economic, the Chancellor is far less powerful than he appears and has to ensure that the UK is internationally competitive, hence the cuts in CT (I have given up trying to explain to Financier that this was not my view, simply a possible line for a Labour candidate to take). But what we ultimately give to international business is access to the fourth or fifth largest economy in the world. There does need to be a price on the door, especially for profit earned on the way out.
What I was trying to point out that it was not a very valid line for Labour to use as it could be shot down easily.
Not sure that international rates of CT are a major talking point down at the Dog and Duck but you may be right.
Going back to the topic of the thread what lines can Labour candidates take? As Mike has pointed out Yvette has played the woman card, where else has Osborne left Labour to play?
Labour seem to be clutching at straws to find some attack lines for this budget. Just as Balls used to do. The emphasis on working mums is a slimy nudge at Liz, but from the Balls camp of McBride should we expect any less?
@kiranstacey: Alistair Darling: "Tax credits went beyond what we planned... But taking 4bn away frm ppl at the lower end will cause a lot of difficulty."
"Yes, they were a disaster, and needed to be fixed, but I am politically motivated to criticise this particular fix..."
a) Doesn't cut welfare back far enough - still too much going to rich pensioners b) Higher minimum wage will attract even more immigrants c) Higher minimum wage will push immigrants into working in the black market d) Education being neglected for pensioners - we are the party of the future.
Of course in the final analysis corporations don't pay or suffer tax at all. Their employees, shareholders and bondholders do. We could set corporation tax to zero. All the cashflow of the company would go somewhere - to employees, owners or lenders - and that cashflow can be taxed.
In a competitive world we need absolutely to attract businesses and investment and lowering CT is a good thing in and of itself.
That assumes that the money remains in our system. If the profits earned in the UK float offshore untaxed we lose out. Hence the google tax, one of Osborne's more radical ideas that seems to be bringing those profits back onshore again to some degree.
But with so much of our economy now in foreign ownership this is something we have to be constantly vigilant about. Hence the complicated stuff about foreign owned property yesterday.
Of course, as in most things economic, the Chancellor is far less powerful than he appears and has to ensure that the UK is internationally competitive, hence the cuts in CT (I have given up trying to explain to Financier that this was not my view, simply a possible line for a Labour candidate to take). But what we ultimately give to international business is access to the fourth or fifth largest economy in the world. There does need to be a price on the door, especially for profit earned on the way out.
Taxing dividend payments and earnings is ALOT easier and harder to avoid than taxing profits on complicated corporate structures. I'm not kidding. We should simply abolish CT altogether and tax UK companies' cashflow as employee earnings or owners' dividends or lenders' repayments. Much, much harder to avoid tax. And every company in the world would want to relocate here.
Not if the companies are not based here and don't spend their profits here. Look at Amazon and their laughable tax record. Look at Starbucks.
If we want acceptable levels of public services we need to find a way to tax the profits they make in this country and hide in these complicated corporate structures. Because the shareholders and indeed the senior management don't live here or pay taxes here.
Of course in the final analysis corporations don't pay or suffer tax at all. Their employees, shareholders and bondholders do. We could set corporation tax to zero. All the cashflow of the company would go somewhere - to employees, owners or lenders - and that cashflow can be taxed.
In a competitive world we need absolutely to attract businesses and investment and lowering CT is a good thing in and of itself.
That assumes that the money remains in our system. If the profits earned in the UK float offshore untaxed we lose out. Hence the google tax, one of Osborne's more radical ideas that seems to be bringing those profits back onshore again to some degree.
But with so much of our economy now in foreign ownership this is something we have to be constantly vigilant about. Hence the complicated stuff about foreign owned property yesterday.
Of course, as in most things economic, the Chancellor is far less powerful than he appears and has to ensure that the UK is internationally competitive, hence the cuts in CT (I have given up trying to explain to Financier that this was not my view, simply a possible line for a Labour candidate to take). But what we ultimately give to international business is access to the fourth or fifth largest economy in the world. There does need to be a price on the door, especially for profit earned on the way out.
What I was trying to point out that it was not a very valid line for Labour to use as it could be shot down easily.
Not sure that international rates of CT are a major talking point down at the Dog and Duck but you may be right.
Going back to the topic of the thread what lines can Labour candidates take? As Mike has pointed out Yvette has played the woman card, where else has Osborne left Labour to play?
Nobody has talked about much on the realignment of VED on new cars registered after April 2017. It will take some time to work through the system but owners and future owners of those cars will have to pay ~£140 p.a. As the tax for 'dirty' cars will be very high, this could speed up their demise.
On this day in 1981, President Ronald Reagan fired more than 11,000 air traffic controllers who ignored his order to return to work. The sweeping mass firing of federal employees slowed commercial air travel, but it did not cripple the system as the strikers had forecast.
Two days earlier, nearly 13,000 controllers walked out after talks with the Federal Aviation Administration collapsed. As a result, some 7,000 flights across the country were canceled on that day at the peak of the summer travel season.
Robert Poli, president of the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization, sought an across-the-board annual wage increase of $10,000 for the controllers, whose pay ranged from $20,462 to $49,229 per year. He also sought a reduction of their five-day, 40-hour workweek to a four-day, 32-hour workweek. The FAA made a $40 million counteroffer, far short of the $770 million package that the union sought. Reagan branded the strike illegal. He threatened to fire any controller who failed to return to work within 48 hours. Federal judges levied fines of $1 million per day against the union.
To the chagrin of the strikers, the FAA’s contingency plans worked. Some 3,000 supervisors joined 2,000 nonstriking controllers and 900 military controllers in manning airport towers. Before long, about 80 percent of flights were operating normally. Air freight remained virtually unaffected.
In carrying out his threat, Reagan also imposed a lifetime ban on rehiring the strikers. In October 1981, the Federal Labor Relations Authority decertified PATCO.
Think the smart thing to do after this budget is to lay Osborne as next PM; I can imagine there are a fair few Tory back-benchers somewhat disgruntled at Osborne delivering Labour's budget. When taken in the context of the opportunity he had, it's an absolute stinker.
Labour seem to be clutching at straws to find some attack lines for this budget. Just as Balls used to do. The emphasis on working mums is a slimy nudge at Liz, but from the Balls camp of McBride should we expect any less?
@kiranstacey: Alistair Darling: "Tax credits went beyond what we planned... But taking 4bn away frm ppl at the lower end will cause a lot of difficulty."
"Yes, they were a disaster, and needed to be fixed, but I am politically motivated to criticise this particular fix..."
Labour seem to be clutching at straws to find some attack lines for this budget. Just as Balls used to do. The emphasis on working mums is a slimy nudge at Liz, but from the Balls camp of McBride should we expect any less?
@kiranstacey: Alistair Darling: "Tax credits went beyond what we planned... But taking 4bn away frm ppl at the lower end will cause a lot of difficulty."
"Yes, they were a disaster, and needed to be fixed, but I am politically motivated to criticise this particular fix..."
Comments
Buf it straIght out of Browns playbook, with no insight into how bloated welfare spending had become and no serious suggestion of how to balance the budget.
Cooper would be a gift to the Tories. Wooden style and vacuous approach to policy.
Morning all.
Ms Cooper was certainly first out of the blocks regarding the budget and appears to have left the other contenders standing at the start line. Her presence at Harperson's right arm yesterday will also be interpreted as significant imho. - No doubt her robust response will appeal to some within the party and may even strike accord with the intended gender target. Not sure however, that this will be enough to overcome her obvious problems, but then it certainly will not have done her chances any harm.
(Typo, - bit of a double negative, fourth paragraph concerning Kendal)
But yes - narry a thought for the people who otherwise would be paying for these cuts - all the way back to the penury of 2008.......
More generally, headlines are one thing, but it is the practical effects of the budget that will actually matter. For many families, the working tax credit cuts will have a greater impact than the tax cuts; while the very welcome acceptance of the need for a Living Wage seems to have manifested itself in something that is more akin to a rebranding and rebooting of the minimum wage.
As I said last night, Osborne's stroll into Labour territory and his conversion to Labour policies that Tories very recently derided should be a gift for a half decent opposition. That is the real test for the leadership candidates and, much more important, for the person who ends up winning.
But that does not matter. Osborne has decided to adopt a number of Labour policies and Labour has to deal with it. There are plenty of major opportunities here for a smart opposition.
http://hopisen.com/2015/osbornes-gift-to-labour/
Cooper cannot shout, because she has a husband who has had a fat redundancy cheque and how much did they both make from switching properties - odd that has not been brought up - unless all candidates are guilty of that 'offence'.
Stocks in Corbyn's leadership bid are set to rise no doubt…
But it doesn't matter - you look stupid if you try to oppose it, and neutered if you agree with it.
Getting all outraged and nitpicking highly marginal examples doesn't get you anywhere either. Just roll with it and concentrate on having something new to say. Fighting that battle is pointless unless it all goes horribly wrong [Gordon adopting Tory spending plans then dropping them].
I have ovaries. Vote for me, or be denounced as a woman-hating neanderthal!
If women had twice as good a deal as men, would anyone care? I have yet to see Cooper shrieking about the far higher rates of male suicide. Or the far better rates of mothers winning custody proceedings. Or getting cushy divorce settlements.
https://twitter.com/SocialismIsDead/status/619034586891329536
Bloody good idea. It's about time that we, the People, had some form of representatives whom we could select somehow to govern this nation.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/19/problems-charity-sector-executive-pay-bosses
I don't like the tear jerking adverts charities are currently running on tv either.
The Wall Street Journal has an interesting if sometimes rather caustic take on events:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/fear-grows-in-greece-as-decisive-hour-nears-1436399935
The Washington Post, hardly noted as a bastion of the radical right, is rather more scathing and seems to sign up to divers conspiracy theories about how and why this is happening:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/07/08/why-the-greece-crisis-could-be-the-beginning-of-the-end-of-europe-as-we-know-it/
And of course the most vitriolic of them all, something that any admirer of Nigel Farage will enjoy:
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/will070915.php3
Osborne has done the same as Brown used to do to the Tories. By appearing to move to the centre ground he leaves them very few places to go and with a tendency to go to the extremes simply to differentiate themselves.
This is the challenge that the Labour leadership contenders face and it is not an easy one. I am not sure that playing the gender card is a great angle but at least Cooper has found one and been heard. What angle are the others going to find?
At the election and even in March Osborne was adamant that in the great rebalancing we had already had the large tax increases (principally through VAT and the more aggressive charges on higher tax payers) and it was time for spending to bear the strain. What is slightly odd about yesterday is that he seems to have changed his mind. There will be considerably more taxes in this Parliament, about £45bn more, and more spending too.
The additional spending largely arises because the changes to welfare have been slowed down considerably with the current entitlements for existing children, for example, largely protected. It is very difficult for the Labour party to effectively attack more spending.
Labour also want to get away from Ed's anti business agenda which so damaged them in the election. Nevertheless, if I was advising Kendall in particular I would go after the CT cuts. Is it right that big corporations should be able to make so many profits out of this country and pay so little tax on it? Is it right that tax should be reduced when working benefits for their poorly paid employees are being cut? Being perceived to be on the right of Labour I think she could be more credible and get a better hearing on this, especially since she will be more straightforward about welcoming some of the measures than, say, Burnham.
But its not easy.
[Well, there's that, and stealing bits of Welsh to use in a forthcoming fantasy novel which everyone really ought to buy when it's eventually released].
I think they got the idea from Lloyd George in Paris in 1919. He knew his phone line was being tapped, so told London to put his Harlech-born private secretary on the line, and they talked for an hour in Welsh, secure in the knowledge that no one from any of the other powers would understand them. Apparently there were a lot of very annoyed-looking attachés wandering around that day!
Of course I may adjust my position between now and the vote
Corbyn would surely be exempt too, as a London MP not eligible for allowances?
GOICWNBPM
They would do better to attack it as showing that George Osborne didn't understand what was good about these ideas, taking measures designed to help the poor and reducing their living standards, all in the name of a mad obsession with a low tax economy. Describing someone as stupid is much more lethal than describing them as wicked.
@SquareRoot Great minds!
I dislike much of this budget, but I'm in awe of George Osborne's shamelessness and sheer low cunning. It was politics at its most ruthless, with the Chancellor bayoneting the seriously wounded on the Labour benches.
FYI Taiwan is 17%, as is Singapore and China is 20%.
Many companies did put their HQs in Ireland for CT reasons as do others in Lichtenstein 12.5% ad Switzerland 17.92%.
I think you're overthinking this in terms of what's likely to hit the mark with Joe Public.
This wasn't a low tax budget and one of the things that George Osborne was most shameless about was abandoning his differentiator on spending plans (no one will care now). But there is no chance of Joe Public listening to that sort of analysis.
I also agree that this was not a low tax budget, quite the reverse in fact, so the attack on Osborne of trying to shrink the State back to the 30s (always spurious of course) is dead too.
Osborne's political genius is the way that he shapes the agenda to discussion points that give his opponents nowhere obvious to go but his economic policies have been far more pragmatic.
He responded to the slow down in the EZ by effectively adopting spending plans that were within spitting distance of what Balls had advocated. He used the Lib Dems as cover for not being more radical on spending. Even without that cover he has done the same again and used the rhetoric to cover his tracks.
Brown did something similar of course but his policies were always much worse than he was in fact claiming. Osborne has a substantially better record.
The solution to that could in theory be universal credit, but I don't see that becoming the norm any time soon.
Just look at this little list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_of_Ireland
Where you are right is that once you are working sufficient hours to obtain in work benefits the incentive to work more hours is diminished and it is hard to break free of a certain standard of living without working massively more hours and moving beyond benefit altogether. The marginal rates for those on in work benefits are severe. Whether Universal Credit will be able to solve that problem I have my doubts about.
In a competitive world we need absolutely to attract businesses and investment and lowering CT is a good thing in and of itself.
The presumed purpose of this is to get to Universal Credit, precisely to prevent the kind of problems you mention.
Many changes are leading into this, for example the requirement that employers now submit PAYE figures electronically every month, so that records for each individual are always up to date.
The budget addressed the two critical perception issues: nastiness & incompetence.
GO, regardless of the worked examples, has taken a giant leap towards detoxification with the living wage. Lab, meanwhile, remains in the catch-22 situation of being considered economically incompetent and therefore of not being given the opportunity to prove otherwise.
It will mean, events notwithstanding and of course there are always those, that Lab will have to wait until the Cons tire or sleaze themselves out, round about 2025-ish, before they can regain power and implement this infrastructure spending programme or that further tax reform.
Greek media are also reporting that Greece’s reform plan could include €12bn of cuts and tax rises - several billion euros more than previously expected. And that’s because of the deterioration in the Greek economy, which plunged back into recession this year.
But with so much of our economy now in foreign ownership this is something we have to be constantly vigilant about. Hence the complicated stuff about foreign owned property yesterday.
Of course, as in most things economic, the Chancellor is far less powerful than he appears and has to ensure that the UK is internationally competitive, hence the cuts in CT (I have given up trying to explain to Financier that this was not my view, simply a possible line for a Labour candidate to take). But what we ultimately give to international business is access to the fourth or fifth largest economy in the world. There does need to be a price on the door, especially for profit earned on the way out.
Journey from North London into Central was brilliant this morning, 20 mins longer than the usual tube route, but the sun was shining .
Going back to the topic of the thread what lines can Labour candidates take? As Mike has pointed out Yvette has played the woman card, where else has Osborne left Labour to play?
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150707/06204631571/argentina-rewards-programmer-who-exposed-e-voting-vulnerabilities-with-complimentary-home-police-raid.shtml
"Yes, they were a disaster, and needed to be fixed, but I am politically motivated to criticise this particular fix..."
a) Doesn't cut welfare back far enough - still too much going to rich pensioners
b) Higher minimum wage will attract even more immigrants
c) Higher minimum wage will push immigrants into working in the black market
d) Education being neglected for pensioners - we are the party of the future.
etc..
If we want acceptable levels of public services we need to find a way to tax the profits they make in this country and hide in these complicated corporate structures. Because the shareholders and indeed the senior management don't live here or pay taxes here.
When taken in the context of the opportunity he had, it's an absolute stinker.