Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » It could be that the days of saturation general election po

13»

Comments

  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,732
    isam said:

    RobD said:

    isam said:

    RobD said:

    isam said:

    Let's play 'imagine it wasn't a Tory'

    twitter.com/dailymailuk/status/619191560048132096

    Okay. What next?
    There would be copies of dozens of tweets criticising the politician for the next day or so, and lots of tut tutting/ lack of respect etc etc

    Thank god it wasn't Ed Miliband!
    I don't think so. I don't blame anyone for falling asleep during anything, especially if it is outside on a sunny day (after some Pimms perhaps?).
    Hahaha good on you

    Self deprecating humour is the best
    Not sure what you mean by that? Have I criticised people for falling asleep in the past?
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    edited July 2015

    Mr. 565, if you consider books to be trees, I have a forest in my bedroom.

    Well, it worked for the bedroom tax :p
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,518
    Danny565 said:

    RobD said:

    Danny565 said:

    isam said:
    Lefty conspiracy....in the Daily Mail. 13m is an awful lot of "nitpicking exceptions".

    This is an early gift for Labour if they paint it as a tax rise for some of the lowest-paid people in the country, but it will involve them actually having some persistence to keep going on and on about it (something they were pathetic at in the last parliament--they'd always give up after a couple of days if they didn't start gaining traction with one of their attacks).
    More dishonesty from Labour. A withdrawal of benefit is not a tax rise.
    Actually, if you consider tax credits as a negative income tax, it arguably is a tax rise.

    Either way, it's pretty easy to paint it as a "tax" when people's pay packets are going to be cut, and I'm not sure I share the PBTories' optimism that those people affected aren't going to notice. I called it yesterday that this would have a long fuse on it like the 10p tax band scrapping did.
    But they aren't negative income tax, they are benefits. A withdrawal of an allowance is a tax rise, this is a withdrawal of a benefit which is not a tax rise, it is a benefit cut.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,732
    Danny565 said:

    RobD said:

    Danny565 said:

    RobD said:

    Danny565 said:

    isam said:

    twitter.com/dailymailuk/status/619189055172034560

    Lefty conspiracy....in the Daily Mail. 13m is an awful lot of "nitpicking exceptions".

    This is an early gift for Labour if they paint it as a tax rise for some of the lowest-paid people in the country, but it will involve them actually having some persistence to keep going on and on about it (something they were pathetic at in the last parliament--they'd always give up after a couple of days if they didn't start gaining traction with one of their attacks).
    More dishonesty from Labour. A withdrawal of benefit is not a tax rise.
    Actually, if you consider tax credits as a negative income tax, it arguably is a tax rise.

    Either way, it's pretty easy to paint it as a "tax" when people's pay packets are going to be cut, and I'm not sure I share the PBTories' optimism that those people affected aren't going to notice.
    Except they aren't a negative income tax, so there we go.
    Well, it worked for the bedroom tax :p
    Last time I checked that policy was still in force.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,518
    Danny565 said:

    Mr. 565, if you consider books to be trees, I have a forest in my bedroom.

    Well, it worked for the bedroom tax :p
    If it worked then where is EICIPM?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,662
    Mr. 565, indeed, a triumph of slogans over reality.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527

    justin124 said:

    justin124 said:

    justin124 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    justin124 said:


    Cameron child tax credit changes

    Did he rule them out before the election?




    Ed Brown
    election.

    Going forward people will have the full knowledge that they'll only have tax credits for two children.
    But it suggests that Cameron was lying through his teeth during the election campaign.
    What the new Labour leader should do is is put a pledge to restore child tax credits on a giant granite slab, and take it round the country with them
    If the image is starting to build that Cameron & Osborne are out and out liars who will say anything during an election campaign and then row back immediately after being returned to office the effect is likely to be damaging.
    Cameron the first PM to be returned to office with an increase in both seats and share of the vote since Palmerston.

    I think the voters rather like what he says before an election and that he delivers on it.
    Perhaps the voters are now being presented with evidence which contradicts that.
    You don't need to go back as far as Palmerston - Harold Wilson did that twice - 1966 and October 1974.
    You are getting rather desperate - and its 5 years to the next election.
    Actually it's less than 4 years and 10 months now.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,732
    justin124 said:

    justin124 said:

    justin124 said:

    justin124 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    justin124 said:


    Cameron child tax credit changes

    Did he rule them out before the election?




    Ed Brown
    election.

    Going forward people will have the full knowledge that they'll only have tax credits for two children.
    But it suggests that Cameron was lying through his teeth during the election campaign.
    What the new Labour leader should do is is put a pledge to restore child tax credits on a giant granite slab, and take it round the country with them
    If the image is starting to build that Cameron & Osborne are out and out liars who will say anything during an election campaign and then row back immediately after being returned to office the effect is likely to be damaging.
    Cameron the first PM to be returned to office with an increase in both seats and share of the vote since Palmerston.

    I think the voters rather like what he says before an election and that he delivers on it.
    Perhaps the voters are now being presented with evidence which contradicts that.
    You don't need to go back as far as Palmerston - Harold Wilson did that twice - 1966 and October 1974.
    You are getting rather desperate - and its 5 years to the next election.
    Actually it's less than 4 years and 10 months now.
    4 years 10 months of Tory majority government. Excellent.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    RobD said:

    isam said:

    RobD said:

    isam said:

    RobD said:

    isam said:

    Let's play 'imagine it wasn't a Tory'

    twitter.com/dailymailuk/status/619191560048132096

    Okay. What next?
    There would be copies of dozens of tweets criticising the politician for the next day or so, and lots of tut tutting/ lack of respect etc etc

    Thank god it wasn't Ed Miliband!
    I don't think so. I don't blame anyone for falling asleep during anything, especially if it is outside on a sunny day (after some Pimms perhaps?).
    Hahaha good on you

    Self deprecating humour is the best
    Not sure what you mean by that? Have I criticised people for falling asleep in the past?
    I'm just imagining a parallel universe where labour won the election and the culture secretary fell asleep in the royal box at Wimbledon on semi final day

    And you're saying no one on here would indulge in faux outrage!!

    Brilliant stuff
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    Yougov maybe refusing to publish it's Labour leadership poll, but hasn't refused to publish this:
    https://today.yougov.com/news/2015/07/09/gop-frontrunner-donald-trump/

    Donald Trump leads for the first time in a national poll by 4% over Jeb Bush and Rand Paul, of course it's Yougov so you know how accurate it is.
  • FlightpathlFlightpathl Posts: 1,243
    Danny565 said:

    isam said:

    twitter.com/dailymailuk/status/619189055172034560

    Lefty conspiracy....in the Daily Mail. 13m is an awful lot of "nitpicking exceptions".

    This is an early gift for Labour if they paint it as a tax rise for some of the lowest-paid people in the country, but it will involve them actually having some persistence to keep going on and on about it (something they were pathetic at in the last parliament--they'd always give up after a couple of days if they didn't start gaining traction with one of their attacks).
    Apart from that is the Treasury saying the IFS figures only tell part of the story. But the whole point of the exercise is to cut welfare by some 17 billion. Hands up those people who do not want to see a cut in the welfare budget? A budget that is £112 billion at the moment.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    'Even if they do lose their majority, until the Tories get down to around 290 seats, Labour would find it difficult to actually force them from office. Which puts it to around 40 by election defeats required which seems unrealistic to me. Therefore, I would be surprised if the next election were before 2020.'

    290 is greatly understating the minimum the Tories would need to continue as a minority Government. I would put it at 310. Who outside Ulster would agree to support them other than UKIP? LibDems? Hardly - much more likely to be looking for revenge.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,732
    edited July 2015
    isam said:

    RobD said:

    isam said:

    RobD said:

    isam said:

    RobD said:

    isam said:

    Let's play 'imagine it wasn't a Tory'

    twitter.com/dailymailuk/status/619191560048132096

    Okay. What next?
    There would be copies of dozens of tweets criticising the politician for the next day or so, and lots of tut tutting/ lack of respect etc etc

    Thank god it wasn't Ed Miliband!
    I don't think so. I don't blame anyone for falling asleep during anything, especially if it is outside on a sunny day (after some Pimms perhaps?).
    Hahaha good on you

    Self deprecating humour is the best
    Not sure what you mean by that? Have I criticised people for falling asleep in the past?
    I'm just imagining a parallel universe where labour won the election and the culture secretary fell asleep in the royal box at Wimbledon on semi final day

    And you're saying no one on here would indulge in faux outrage!!

    Brilliant stuff
    Not sure how that makes it self deprecating if I wouldn't be doing it, but whatever.

    I think the reaction would be quite analogous to yours, actually.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    RobD said:

    isam said:

    RobD said:

    isam said:

    RobD said:

    isam said:

    RobD said:

    isam said:

    Let's play 'imagine it wasn't a Tory'

    twitter.com/dailymailuk/status/619191560048132096

    Okay. What next?
    There would be copies of dozens of tweets criticising the politician for the next day or so, and lots of tut tutting/ lack of respect etc etc

    Thank god it wasn't Ed Miliband!
    I don't think so. I don't blame anyone for falling asleep during anything, especially if it is outside on a sunny day (after some Pimms perhaps?).
    Hahaha good on you

    Self deprecating humour is the best
    Not sure what you mean by that? Have I criticised people for falling asleep in the past?
    I'm just imagining a parallel universe where labour won the election and the culture secretary fell asleep in the royal box at Wimbledon on semi final day

    And you're saying no one on here would indulge in faux outrage!!

    Brilliant stuff
    Not sure how that makes it self deprecating if I wouldn't be doing it, but whatever.

    I think the reaction would be quite analogous to yours, actually.
    Haha bravo!!

    Great stuff
  • valleyboyvalleyboy Posts: 606
    Danny565 said:

    Apparently Rachel Reeves is hotly-tipped to be the next shadow chancellor, regardless of who wins the leadership.

    She must have some serious dirt on some higher-ups to be constantly getting these good gigs.

    More than happy if it means I get to see more of Rachel on TV

  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,732
    isam said:

    RobD said:

    isam said:

    RobD said:

    isam said:

    RobD said:

    isam said:

    RobD said:

    isam said:

    Let's play 'imagine it wasn't a Tory'

    twitter.com/dailymailuk/status/619191560048132096

    Okay. What next?
    There would be copies of dozens of tweets criticising the politician for the next day or so, and lots of tut tutting/ lack of respect etc etc

    Thank god it wasn't Ed Miliband!
    I don't think so. I don't blame anyone for falling asleep during anything, especially if it is outside on a sunny day (after some Pimms perhaps?).
    Hahaha good on you

    Self deprecating humour is the best
    Not sure what you mean by that? Have I criticised people for falling asleep in the past?
    I'm just imagining a parallel universe where labour won the election and the culture secretary fell asleep in the royal box at Wimbledon on semi final day

    And you're saying no one on here would indulge in faux outrage!!

    Brilliant stuff
    Not sure how that makes it self deprecating if I wouldn't be doing it, but whatever.

    I think the reaction would be quite analogous to yours, actually.
    Haha bravo!!

    Great stuff
    That reply is probably more infuriating than it should be ;)
  • valleyboyvalleyboy Posts: 606
    MaxPB said:

    Danny565 said:

    isam said:
    Lefty conspiracy....in the Daily Mail. 13m is an awful lot of "nitpicking exceptions".

    This is an early gift for Labour if they paint it as a tax rise for some of the lowest-paid people in the country, but it will involve them actually having some persistence to keep going on and on about it (something they were pathetic at in the last parliament--they'd always give up after a couple of days if they didn't start gaining traction with one of their attacks).
    As always, reducing benefits dependency is going to be tough and it is going to have a lot of people that lose out, but it still needs to be done. It is one of those "tough choices" that the people rate the Tories so highly on and Labour so poorly on. Being in government is hard, and if Labour do try and oppose the benefits changes, the Tories will very, very easily paint them as weak on benefit scroungers, get the Mail and Telegraph to run front pages with dole monkey and scroungers moaning about how hard life is going to be having to feed their 9 children and then claim they "can't" work.

    It isn't going to be as easy as you describe for Labour to come up with a decent answer to welfare cuts.

    You know who hates welfare more than people like me? People who work hard for much less money and don't claim benefits. You continually ignore this point, so please address it this time. All of these studies take into account the ideal case where someone always claims what they are entitled to. In reality there are a lot of people who don't, especially wrt to working tax credit which is one of the major changes this budget. Those people who work hard, don't claim tax credits, pay their way, pay their taxes and NICs and get on with their lives hate benefit scroungers more than everyone else. This budget speaks to them directly and Labour would do well not to piss them off.
    Are you saying that pensioners, who make up the vast amount of the welfare bill are scroungers?

  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,494

    My comment on the tax credit aspect of the Budget in case anyone's interested: http://www.nickpalmer.org.uk/

    Unsurprisingly I am not remotely interested. But just to show willing, how would you pay for the £17 billions in benefits the govt are cutting - not to mention total £37 billions of spending cuts the govt have announced?
    We have a deficit because we are spending more than we can afford and even the labour hierarchy have realised that putting up tax to 50p will lose money rather than collect it.
    Touched by the tactful way in which you put it, I'm of course pleased to reply. Personally I'd put up the standard rate of income tax by 1p and higher rate by 2p for a start - we are entirely neurotic about the rates and have been ever since Brown started cutting them. And, like Osborne, whose targets have a pleasing elastacity about them, I wouldn't be too bothered about whether the deficit ended in 2018 0r 2019 or indeed 2020. And I wouldn't try to keep defence spending at 2%.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,518
    valleyboy said:

    MaxPB said:

    Danny565 said:

    isam said:
    Lefty conspiracy....in the Daily Mail. 13m is an awful lot of "nitpicking exceptions".

    This is an early gift for Labour if they paint it as a tax rise for some of the lowest-paid people in the country, but it will involve them actually having some persistence to keep going on and on about it (something they were pathetic at in the last parliament--they'd always give up after a couple of days if they didn't start gaining traction with one of their attacks).
    As always, reducing benefits dependency is going to be tough and it is going to have a lot of people that lose out, but it still needs to be done. It is one of those "tough choices" that the people rate the Tories so highly on and Labour so poorly on. Being in government is hard, and if Labour do try and oppose the benefits changes, the Tories will very, very easily paint them as weak on benefit scroungers, get the Mail and Telegraph to run front pages with dole monkey and scroungers moaning about how hard life is going to be having to feed their 9 children and then claim they "can't" work.

    It isn't going to be as easy as you describe for Labour to come up with a decent answer to welfare cuts.

    You know who hates welfare more than people like me? People who work hard for much less money and don't claim benefits. You continually ignore this point, so please address it this time. All of these studies take into account the ideal case where someone always claims what they are entitled to. In reality there are a lot of people who don't, especially wrt to working tax credit which is one of the major changes this budget. Those people who work hard, don't claim tax credits, pay their way, pay their taxes and NICs and get on with their lives hate benefit scroungers more than everyone else. This budget speaks to them directly and Labour would do well not to piss them off.
    Are you saying that pensioners, who make up the vast amount of the welfare bill are scroungers?

    No, they have paid into the system throughout their working lives. However, I wouldn't mind seeing the triple lock abolished. I have said as much a number of times on here. I think CPI rated rises or 0% if CPI is below that is what we should be looking at. 2.5% rises in the state pension when living costs are falling is an extravagance.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,518

    My comment on the tax credit aspect of the Budget in case anyone's interested: http://www.nickpalmer.org.uk/

    Unsurprisingly I am not remotely interested. But just to show willing, how would you pay for the £17 billions in benefits the govt are cutting - not to mention total £37 billions of spending cuts the govt have announced?
    We have a deficit because we are spending more than we can afford and even the labour hierarchy have realised that putting up tax to 50p will lose money rather than collect it.
    Touched by the tactful way in which you put it, I'm of course pleased to reply. Personally I'd put up the standard rate of income tax by 1p and higher rate by 2p for a start - we are entirely neurotic about the rates and have been ever since Brown started cutting them. And, like Osborne, whose targets have a pleasing elastacity about them, I wouldn't be too bothered about whether the deficit ended in 2018 0r 2019 or indeed 2020. And I wouldn't try to keep defence spending at 2%.
    Thankfully the people of Broxtowe knew better than to put you and your disgraceful party back into power. Raising taxes on ordinary people to pay for corporate welfare. Cutting the defence budget in a time when our citizens are being attacked overseas to protect Labour's client vote. I understand why Anna Soubry won.
  • valleyboyvalleyboy Posts: 606


    Are you saying that pensioners, who make up the vast amount of the welfare bill are scroungers?



    No, they have paid into the system throughout their working lives. However, I wouldn't mind seeing the triple lock abolished. I have said as much a number of times on here. I think CPI rated rises or 0% if CPI is below that is what we should be looking at. 2.5% rises in the state pension when living costs are falling is an extravagance.

    I was struck by the chart in the Times today where the various benefits were listed.Tucked away at the bottom of the list were the pension figures. Pensions costs 3 times as much as tax credits, the nearest most expensive benefit and is forecast to rise by £15bn over the next 5 years.
    I have recently become a pensioner, so I am not biased, but it does seem very very unfair that my generation is getting away Scot free, yet the young generations are getting hammered. I wonder why?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,662
    Mr. Valleyboy, do you really wonder, given the way people turn out to vote?

    Speaking of voting, has Greece presented its proposals yet?
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503
    edited July 2015
    valleyboy said:



    Are you saying that pensioners, who make up the vast amount of the welfare bill are scroungers?



    No, they have paid into the system throughout their working lives. However, I wouldn't mind seeing the triple lock abolished. I have said as much a number of times on here. I think CPI rated rises or 0% if CPI is below that is what we should be looking at. 2.5% rises in the state pension when living costs are falling is an extravagance.

    I was struck by the chart in the Times today where the various benefits were listed.Tucked away at the bottom of the list were the pension figures. Pensions costs 3 times as much as tax credits, the nearest most expensive benefit and is forecast to rise by £15bn over the next 5 years.
    I have recently become a pensioner, so I am not biased, but it does seem very very unfair that my generation is getting away Scot free, yet the young generations are getting hammered. I wonder why?

    Pensioners vote.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,207
    Mr Dancer, I am getting the distinct impression that the Greek Prime Minister is actually Mr Wensleydale from the Monty Python Cheese Shop.....

    Complete with bouzouki players.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3KBuQHHKx0
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,582
    edited July 2015
    MaxPB said:

    My comment on the tax credit aspect of the Budget in case anyone's interested: http://www.nickpalmer.org.uk/

    Unsurprisingly I am not remotely interested. But just to show willing, how would you pay for the £17 billions in benefits the govt are cutting - not to mention total £37 billions of spending cuts the govt have announced?
    We have a deficit because we are spending more than we can afford and even the labour hierarchy have realised that putting up tax to 50p will lose money rather than collect it.
    Touched by the tactful way in which you put it, I'm of course pleased to reply. Personally I'd put up the standard rate of income tax by 1p and higher rate by 2p for a start - we are entirely neurotic about the rates and have been ever since Brown started cutting them. And, like Osborne, whose targets have a pleasing elastacity about them, I wouldn't be too bothered about whether the deficit ended in 2018 0r 2019 or indeed 2020. And I wouldn't try to keep defence spending at 2%.
    Thankfully the people of Broxtowe knew better than to put you and your disgraceful party back into power. Raising taxes on ordinary people to pay for corporate welfare. Cutting the defence budget in a time when our citizens are being attacked overseas to protect Labour's client vote. I understand why Anna Soubry won.

    What an unpleasant post. Not usually your style Max. A lot of ordinary people are going to be significantly worse off as a result of the budget. Why should they have to suffer to keep the unproductive Tory client vote happy? The last government cut the defence budget significantly. How will Trident prevent the murder of British tourists, some of whom - can you imagine it - may even be among the 9 million plus who voted Labour in May.

  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,582

    Danny565 said:

    isam said:

    twitter.com/dailymailuk/status/619189055172034560

    Lefty conspiracy....in the Daily Mail. 13m is an awful lot of "nitpicking exceptions".

    This is an early gift for Labour if they paint it as a tax rise for some of the lowest-paid people in the country, but it will involve them actually having some persistence to keep going on and on about it (something they were pathetic at in the last parliament--they'd always give up after a couple of days if they didn't start gaining traction with one of their attacks).
    Apart from that is the Treasury saying the IFS figures only tell part of the story. But the whole point of the exercise is to cut welfare by some 17 billion. Hands up those people who do not want to see a cut in the welfare budget? A budget that is £112 billion at the moment.

    It would mean the Tories going after their most reliable voters. It's not going to happen.

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,139

    MaxPB said:

    My comment on the tax credit aspect of the Budget in case anyone's interested: http://www.nickpalmer.org.uk/

    Unsurprisingly I am not remotely interested. But just to show willing, how would you pay for the £17 billions in benefits the govt are cutting - not to mention total £37 billions of spending cuts the govt have announced?
    We have a deficit because we are spending more than we can afford and even the labour hierarchy have realised that putting up tax to 50p will lose money rather than collect it.
    Touched by the tactful way in which you put it, I'm of course pleased to reply. Personally I'd put up the standard rate of income tax by 1p and higher rate by 2p for a start - we are entirely neurotic about the rates and have been ever since Brown started cutting them. And, like Osborne, whose targets have a pleasing elastacity about them, I wouldn't be too bothered about whether the deficit ended in 2018 0r 2019 or indeed 2020. And I wouldn't try to keep defence spending at 2%.
    Thankfully the people of Broxtowe knew better than to put you and your disgraceful party back into power. Raising taxes on ordinary people to pay for corporate welfare. Cutting the defence budget in a time when our citizens are being attacked overseas to protect Labour's client vote. I understand why Anna Soubry won.

    What an unpleasant post. Not usually your style Max. A lot of ordinary people are going to be significantly worse off as a result of the budget. Why should they have to suffer to keep the unproductive Tory client vote happy? The last government cut the defence budget significantly. How will Trident prevent the murder of British tourists, some of whom - can you imagine it - may even be among the 9 million plus who voted Labour in May.

    The problem with that is that a lot of 'ordinary' (*) people will be worse off (significantly or otherwise) in any sane budget. If you want to give, you need to take.

    The only way around this is to either do nothing (when some will probably be worse off anyway from delayed measures), or give from borrowing,when future generations will feel the cost.

    (*) How do you define 'ordinary'? Non-hunchbacked? People with two arms?
  • valleyboyvalleyboy Posts: 606

    Mr. Valleyboy, do you really wonder, given the way people turn out to vote?

    Speaking of voting, has Greece presented its proposals yet?

    I think it very very sad that for purely political reasons Osborne has hammered a section of our society, yet protected another.
    As a pensioner now, I would have had no problems in accepting the same rise as the rest of the public services, if it meant young people being helped a little. Perhaps I am in a minority of 1 though.

  • JWisemannJWisemann Posts: 1,082
    Max seems to have been replaced by someone who shares his former unpleasant views but now also articulates them in a very unpleasant manner too. Odd.
    As for 'It is one of those "tough choices" that the people rate the Tories so highly on and Labour so poorly on. '
    Funny how these 'tough choices' always seem to involve shafting those with the least money and power. One would think the real tough choices would involve dealing with the detriment to society caused those who actually have power, money and influence over the Tory Party.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,662
    As an aside, saw a sort-of trailer for a Sky News special report (think it airs tomorrow evening at 9.30pm, might be tonight) into drugs in Mexico, by Stuart Ramsay[sp]. It looks like an extremely good piece of journalism, highlighting the immense amounts of money flowing in to drug cartels, who control airports, run courts and have enough financial clout to practically buy the whole political scene.

    Not only that, over 80,000 people have suffered drug-related deaths (I forget if it's straightforward killings or includes OD events) in Mexico in recent years.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,582

    MaxPB said:

    My comment on the tax credit aspect of the Budget in case anyone's interested: http://www.nickpalmer.org.uk/

    Unsurprisingly I am not remotely interested. But just to show willing, how would you pay for the £17 billions in benefits the govt are cutting - not to mention total £37 billions of spending cuts the govt have announced?
    We have a deficit because we are spending more than we can afford and even the labour hierarchy have realised that putting up tax to 50p will lose money rather than collect it.
    Touched by the tactful way in which you put it, I'm of course pleased to reply. Personally I'd put up the standard rate of income tax by 1p and higher rate by 2p for a start - we are entirely neurotic about the rates and have been ever since Brown started cutting them. And, like Osborne, whose targets have a pleasing elastacity about them, I wouldn't be too bothered about whether the deficit ended in 2018 0r 2019 or indeed 2020. And I wouldn't try to keep defence spending at 2%.
    Thankfully the people of Broxtowe knew better than to put you and your disgraceful party back into power. Raising taxes on ordinary people to pay for corporate welfare. Cutting the defence budget in a time when our citizens are being attacked overseas to protect Labour's client vote. I understand why Anna Soubry won.

    What an unpleasant post. Not usually your style Max. A lot of ordinary people are going to be significantly worse off as a result of the budget. Why should they have to suffer to keep the unproductive Tory client vote happy? The last government cut the defence budget significantly. How will Trident prevent the murder of British tourists, some of whom - can you imagine it - may even be among the 9 million plus who voted Labour in May.

    The problem with that is that a lot of 'ordinary' (*) people will be worse off (significantly or otherwise) in any sane budget. If you want to give, you need to take.

    The only way around this is to either do nothing (when some will probably be worse off anyway from delayed measures), or give from borrowing,when future generations will feel the cost.

    (*) How do you define 'ordinary'? Non-hunchbacked? People with two arms?

    Absolutely. But the Tories have a client vote - pensioners - just as much as Labour does. Funnily enough, they never seem to be affected by the tough choices Osborne makes.

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 77,769

    MaxPB said:

    My comment on the tax credit aspect of the Budget in case anyone's interested: http://www.nickpalmer.org.uk/

    Unsurprisingly I am not remotely interested. But just to show willing, how would you pay for the £17 billions in benefits the govt are cutting - not to mention total £37 billions of spending cuts the govt have announced?
    We have a deficit because we are spending more than we can afford and even the labour hierarchy have realised that putting up tax to 50p will lose money rather than collect it.
    Touched by the tactful way in which you put it, I'm of course pleased to reply. Personally I'd put up the standard rate of income tax by 1p and higher rate by 2p for a start - we are entirely neurotic about the rates and have been ever since Brown started cutting them. And, like Osborne, whose targets have a pleasing elastacity about them, I wouldn't be too bothered about whether the deficit ended in 2018 0r 2019 or indeed 2020. And I wouldn't try to keep defence spending at 2%.
    Thankfully the people of Broxtowe knew better than to put you and your disgraceful party back into power. Raising taxes on ordinary people to pay for corporate welfare. Cutting the defence budget in a time when our citizens are being attacked overseas to protect Labour's client vote. I understand why Anna Soubry won.

    What an unpleasant post. Not usually your style Max. A lot of ordinary people are going to be significantly worse off as a result of the budget. Why should they have to suffer to keep the unproductive Tory client vote happy? The last government cut the defence budget significantly. How will Trident prevent the murder of British tourists, some of whom - can you imagine it - may even be among the 9 million plus who voted Labour in May.

    The problem with that is that a lot of 'ordinary' (*) people will be worse off (significantly or otherwise) in any sane budget. If you want to give, you need to take.

    The only way around this is to either do nothing (when some will probably be worse off anyway from delayed measures), or give from borrowing,when future generations will feel the cost.

    (*) How do you define 'ordinary'? Non-hunchbacked? People with two arms?

    Absolutely. But the Tories have a client vote - pensioners - just as much as Labour does. Funnily enough, they never seem to be affected by the tough choices Osborne makes.

    Ed Balls was tripping over himself for the grey vote pre GE Mr Observer !

    It wouldn't be any different under Labour for pensioners and you know it ;p
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,518

    What an unpleasant post. Not usually your style Max. A lot of ordinary people are going to be significantly worse off as a result of the budget. Why should they have to suffer to keep the unproductive Tory client vote happy? The last government cut the defence budget significantly. How will Trident prevent the murder of British tourists, some of whom - can you imagine it - may even be among the 9 million plus who voted Labour in May.

    As you know there are a few subjects which get under my skin. Welfare dependency is one of them. A quasi Marxist blathering on about raising taxes on ordinary people to keep corporate welfare benefits is basically a red flag for me. As you also know I have argued against every single defence cut made by this government and if UKIP stopped being a cult of personality wrt to Farage and became a serious party I might not have voted Conservative. It isn't just Trident, further cuts would now severely diminish our ability to project force globally, the Americans know it and so do our enemies. The Tunisian terror attack was specifically targeted at British citizens in the resorts, I'm sure part of the reason is that the terror groups know that we are now too impotent to even bomb them back to the stone ages.

    Just one post below that one I also said the pain needed to be shared equally with pensioners losing the triple lock. That move alone would save £18.5bn over the next spending period, meaning we could either reduce the deficit faster or implement the benefits changes for working age people slightly more slowly.

    Again, you know I'm not some party line idiot. The triple lock is economic vandalism to buy votes, I don't pretend otherwise. Nick Palmer is trying to pretend that Brown's tax credits are genuine and not just some vote buying sop for the client classes.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,518
    JWisemann said:

    Max seems to have been replaced by someone who shares his former unpleasant views but now also articulates them in a very unpleasant manner too. Odd.
    As for 'It is one of those "tough choices" that the people rate the Tories so highly on and Labour so poorly on. '
    Funny how these 'tough choices' always seem to involve shafting those with the least money and power. One would think the real tough choices would involve dealing with the detriment to society caused those who actually have power, money and influence over the Tory Party.

    So the Landlords, supermarkets/cafés and banks are howling for absolutely no reason today? This budget hit basically every group. It was a massive tax raising and benefit cutting budget.

    Only the pensioners got away without taking a hit, which is unfair, we should all be in it together.
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503
    valleyboy said:

    Mr. Valleyboy, do you really wonder, given the way people turn out to vote?

    Speaking of voting, has Greece presented its proposals yet?

    I think it very very sad that for purely political reasons Osborne has hammered a section of our society, yet protected another.
    As a pensioner now, I would have had no problems in accepting the same rise as the rest of the public services, if it meant young people being helped a little. Perhaps I am in a minority of 1 though.

    +1 here. There seems to be an assumption that pensioners are all poor (some are of course).
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656



    Absolutely. But the Tories have a client vote - pensioners - just as much as Labour does. Funnily enough, they never seem to be affected by the tough choices Osborne makes.

    The difference is that virtually everyone becomes a pensioner one day. Thus it's not really favouring a specific segment of society, but favouring everyone during a certain stage of their life. Labour, however, prefer to favour specific groups that most of us will never be part of. That's far more divisive.
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656

    My comment on the tax credit aspect of the Budget in case anyone's interested: http://www.nickpalmer.org.uk/

    Unsurprisingly I am not remotely interested. But just to show willing, how would you pay for the £17 billions in benefits the govt are cutting - not to mention total £37 billions of spending cuts the govt have announced?
    We have a deficit because we are spending more than we can afford and even the labour hierarchy have realised that putting up tax to 50p will lose money rather than collect it.
    Touched by the tactful way in which you put it, I'm of course pleased to reply. Personally I'd put up the standard rate of income tax by 1p and higher rate by 2p for a start - we are entirely neurotic about the rates and have been ever since Brown started cutting them. And, like Osborne, whose targets have a pleasing elastacity about them, I wouldn't be too bothered about whether the deficit ended in 2018 0r 2019 or indeed 2020. And I wouldn't try to keep defence spending at 2%.
    By what year would you aim to get the national debt back to pre-recession levels?
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    Disraeli said:

    isam said:
    We need to find these savings in order to pay increased subs to the EU.

    "Budget 2015: Cost of EU member to be £3 billion higher than expected"
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/11727741/Budget-2015-Cost-of-EU-member-to-be-3-billion-higher-than-expected.html

    " Britain’s contribution to the European Union budget is set to be £3.1 billion higher over the next five years than was forecast before the election.

    The Office for Budget Responsibility said it expects Britain’s contributions to Brussels to jump by £1.3 billion next year alone.

    The revisions are in part due to a reassessment by economists of the size of Britain’s economy compared to the rest of Europe. Critics will argue that it in effect means that Britain is being penalised for economic success. "
    It's amazing that the entirety of the savings from tax credits will be eaten up by higher EU payments. We get less and less out of the EU every year, and pay more and more for the privilege. How did this happen when the last EU budget was supposed to be capped?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 56,690
    JEO said:

    Disraeli said:

    isam said:
    We need to find these savings in order to pay increased subs to the EU.

    "Budget 2015: Cost of EU member to be £3 billion higher than expected"
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/11727741/Budget-2015-Cost-of-EU-member-to-be-3-billion-higher-than-expected.html

    " Britain’s contribution to the European Union budget is set to be £3.1 billion higher over the next five years than was forecast before the election.

    The Office for Budget Responsibility said it expects Britain’s contributions to Brussels to jump by £1.3 billion next year alone.

    The revisions are in part due to a reassessment by economists of the size of Britain’s economy compared to the rest of Europe. Critics will argue that it in effect means that Britain is being penalised for economic success. "
    It's amazing that the entirety of the savings from tax credits will be eaten up by higher EU payments. We get less and less out of the EU every year, and pay more and more for the privilege. How did this happen when the last EU budget was supposed to be capped?
    Isn't £3bn over 5 years about £600m a year?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,576
    edited July 2015
    JEO said:

    Disraeli said:

    isam said:
    We need to find these savings in order to pay increased subs to the EU.

    "Budget 2015: Cost of EU member to be £3 billion higher than expected"
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/11727741/Budget-2015-Cost-of-EU-member-to-be-3-billion-higher-than-expected.html

    " Britain’s contribution to the European Union budget is set to be £3.1 billion higher over the next five years than was forecast before the election.

    The Office for Budget Responsibility said it expects Britain’s contributions to Brussels to jump by £1.3 billion next year alone.

    The revisions are in part due to a reassessment by economists of the size of Britain’s economy compared to the rest of Europe. Critics will argue that it in effect means that Britain is being penalised for economic success. "
    It's amazing that the entirety of the savings from tax credits will be eaten up by higher EU payments. We get less and less out of the EU every year, and pay more and more for the privilege. How did this happen when the last EU budget was supposed to be capped?
    Whatever the explanation, if correct it does rather make the 'we can win concessions' argument harder, since they can always be clawed back.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,188

    New Thread

Sign In or Register to comment.