Long term economic plan - code for we haven't really got a clue. Tired cliche, Cameron should drop it.
Hinkley Point power station, is that part of the long term economic plan? What plan has Cameron got for keeping the balance of payments deficit from growing? What is the plan for reducing house price inflation?
Michael Heseltine gave a masterclass in political interviews on Pienaar this morning. Every new MP should listen.
I see Andrew Marr was at his "interrupting best" this morning. I do wish David Cameron would challenge him more about this. It was obvious he was rushing the questions so he could get to Ashcroft's book.
It was quite clear on Sunday Politics that Isabel Oakshott has taken a real pasting on this. If I see her next week in Manchester, I might give her a piece of my mind!
Odds on Rogers being sacked in the morning have changed. LFC 1-0 up.
1 all now...
The Rogers Out tweets have increased again.
OGH tweeted this on Watson.
Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB 6m6 minutes ago LAB deputy Tom Watson is now rated as, 20% favourite on Betfair replace Mr Corbyn. The assassin maybe. The successor I'm not so sure.
It may have slipped through the net but good to see the government addressing grandparental leave - something which is important to a few at the moment but will increasingly be so, given people working longer.
Michelle Thomson: 23 years of working in the financial services sector, before starting her own business in building up a portfolio of buy to let and corporate rental properties accessible through her her trading company: Your Property Shop. We have already seen from our Twitter exchanges that as MD of Business for Scotland Michelle is not a great fan of answering direct questions. Aside from Business for Scotland Ltd, Michelle has one active directorship: Your Property Shop Ltd (SC451292) - founded 05/13 and yet to file any accounts. She is also a Director of Edinburgh Global Property Investments ltd (SC342421) which ceased trading in 2011 and was dissolved in 2013; the balance sheet suggests this business never traded materially. She is also a Director of Michelle R Thomson Consulting ltd (SC377063) which is non-trading.
Long term economic plan - code for we haven't really got a clue. Tired cliche, Cameron should drop it.
Hinkley Point power station, is that part of the long term economic plan? What plan has Cameron got for keeping the balance of payments deficit from growing? What is the plan for reducing house price inflation?
The plan is to shower pensioners with benefits at the expense of everyone else so they continue to vote Tory by a 2-1 margin.
Michelle Thomson: 23 years of working in the financial services sector, before starting her own business in building up a portfolio of buy to let and corporate rental properties accessible through her her trading company: Your Property Shop. We have already seen from our Twitter exchanges that as MD of Business for Scotland Michelle is not a great fan of answering direct questions. Aside from Business for Scotland Ltd, Michelle has one active directorship: Your Property Shop Ltd (SC451292) - founded 05/13 and yet to file any accounts. She is also a Director of Edinburgh Global Property Investments ltd (SC342421) which ceased trading in 2011 and was dissolved in 2013; the balance sheet suggests this business never traded materially. She is also a Director of Michelle R Thomson Consulting ltd (SC377063) which is non-trading.
"Michelle R Thomson Consulting ltd"
What is she consulting about? And what is her fee?
Daniel Furr @DanielFurrUK 3m3 minutes ago The sound you hear are the phones of Fleet Street calling the Labour press office, asking if their leader support journalists being spat on
Daniel Furr The sound you hear are the phones of Fleet Street calling the Labour press office, asking if their leader support journalists being spat on
The poll tax was a failure because it was a large tax rise for the middle class, it all depends if cutting tax credits will also see the middle class tax bill rising.
They are both a clever way though to increase taxes without saying so, but it damages your credibility if people see their tax bills suddenly rising.
Michelle Thomson: 23 years of working in the financial services sector, before starting her own business in building up a portfolio of buy to let and corporate rental properties accessible through her her trading company: Your Property Shop. We have already seen from our Twitter exchanges that as MD of Business for Scotland Michelle is not a great fan of answering direct questions. Aside from Business for Scotland Ltd, Michelle has one active directorship: Your Property Shop Ltd (SC451292) - founded 05/13 and yet to file any accounts. She is also a Director of Edinburgh Global Property Investments ltd (SC342421) which ceased trading in 2011 and was dissolved in 2013; the balance sheet suggests this business never traded materially. She is also a Director of Michelle R Thomson Consulting ltd (SC377063) which is non-trading.
"Michelle R Thomson Consulting ltd"
What is she consulting about? And what is her fee?
Substantial - until she was fired (but not publicly) from the SNP front completely separate independent Business for Scotland
Strikes me that tax credit cuts are more of a wedge issue than Poll Tax ever was. M/C benefit from it (lower taxes), aspirational w/c support it (helps to reward the hard working w/c vs welfare claimants) and neither group think the cuts are unfair or unwarranted, so liberals in SW marginals are not 'disgusted enough' to vote for Corbyn.
Will not help Tories in city centre seats, though. But, they could feasibly win the 2020 election on lower share of the vote in E&W than 2015 as Labour stack up votes where they don't need them.
Fascinating meme so far at CPC15 - Hammond talks a lot about Gibralter/bugger off Spanish authority boats, then Falklands sovereignty and bugger off to those who want to hand them over. Next up Ashley Fox MEP for Gib knocking EU.
Michelle Thomson: 23 years of working in the financial services sector, before starting her own business in building up a portfolio of buy to let and corporate rental properties accessible through her her trading company: Your Property Shop. We have already seen from our Twitter exchanges that as MD of Business for Scotland Michelle is not a great fan of answering direct questions. Aside from Business for Scotland Ltd, Michelle has one active directorship: Your Property Shop Ltd (SC451292) - founded 05/13 and yet to file any accounts. She is also a Director of Edinburgh Global Property Investments ltd (SC342421) which ceased trading in 2011 and was dissolved in 2013; the balance sheet suggests this business never traded materially. She is also a Director of Michelle R Thomson Consulting ltd (SC377063) which is non-trading.
"Michelle R Thomson Consulting ltd"
What is she consulting about? And what is her fee?
Substantial - until she was fired (but not publicly) from the SNP front completely separate independent Business for Scotland
Strikes me that tax credit cuts are more of a wedge issue than Poll Tax ever was. M/C benefit from it (lower taxes), aspirational w/c support it (helps to reward the hard working w/c vs welfare claimants) and neither group think the cuts are unfair or unwarranted, so liberals in SW marginals are not 'disgusted enough' to vote for Corbyn.
Will not help Tories in city centre seats, though. But, they could feasibly win the 2020 election on lower share of the vote in E&W than 2015 as Labour stack up votes where they don't need them.
The "aspirational" low-paid workers are the very ones who will be hit in their pockets.
Strikes me that tax credit cuts are more of a wedge issue than Poll Tax ever was. M/C benefit from it (lower taxes), aspirational w/c support it (helps to reward the hard working w/c vs welfare claimants) and neither group think the cuts are unfair or unwarranted, so liberals in SW marginals are not 'disgusted enough' to vote for Corbyn.
Will not help Tories in city centre seats, though. But, they could feasibly win the 2020 election on lower share of the vote in E&W than 2015 as Labour stack up votes where they don't need them.
The "aspirational" low-paid workers are the very ones who will be hit in their pockets.
Not true, low paid workers who refuse to work more hours a week will be weaned off benefit dependency.
Strikes me that tax credit cuts are more of a wedge issue than Poll Tax ever was. M/C benefit from it (lower taxes), aspirational w/c support it (helps to reward the hard working w/c vs welfare claimants) and neither group think the cuts are unfair or unwarranted, so liberals in SW marginals are not 'disgusted enough' to vote for Corbyn.
Will not help Tories in city centre seats, though. But, they could feasibly win the 2020 election on lower share of the vote in E&W than 2015 as Labour stack up votes where they don't need them.
The "aspirational" low-paid workers are the very ones who will be hit in their pockets.
Not true, low paid workers who refuse to work more hours a week will be weaned off benefit dependency.
It's comments like this which gives me an insight into Tories' minds. It's become obvious through these discussions that many of them are genuinely unaware of just how many people are on tax credits (because it's so hard for people to live on the pathetic wages at the bottom of the scale).
It's worth pointing out a LOT of marginals in the Midlands and South have higher-than-average tax credit take-up.
Is there some analysis on this.
I expect to see higher tax credit recipients less likely to vote, and also Midland and Southern marginal tax credit recipients claiming much less than Northern TCRs. If that is true, the increase in personal allowance will offset almost all of the 'loss'.
I can be persuaded by the argument that the tax credit system just wasn't working, and in the abstract people might agree it will be a good thing, but if it is the case that many many people will get letters saying they will be receiving much less than before, even if this is to be mitigated with higher minimum wage and so on, then I can see it blowing up as an issue much more than many others, and I think there seems to be a fear from some conservatives that that will indeed be the case.
It's worth pointing out a LOT of marginals in the Midlands and South have higher-than-average tax credit take-up.
Is there some analysis on this.
I expect to see higher tax credit recipients less likely to vote, and also Midland and Southern marginal tax credit recipients claiming much less than Northern TCRs. If that is true, the increase in personal allowance will offset almost all of the 'loss'.
Annoyingly I can't find it right now, but I recently saw a ranked list of consituencies of tax credit take-up, based on the 2011 census.
Safe Labour seats often have very high unemployment rates (who aren't eligible for tax credits), while safe Tory seats typically have more retirees and people too rich for tax credits. By contrast, a lot of marginals have a lot of young families and people in work but fairly low-paid, which is exactly where tax credits are targeted - and the Tories would not have won this year if they'd not had a decent showing among that "strivers" group.
I can be persuaded by the argument that the tax credit system just wasn't working, and in the abstract people might agree it will be a good thing, but if it is the case that many many people will get letters saying they will be receiving much less than before, even if this is to be mitigated with higher minimum wage and so on, then I can see it blowing up as an issue much more than many others, and I think there seems to be a fear from some conservatives that that will indeed be the case.
Labour do not have a leadership that can exploit this issue.
It also ties in with the government's immigration strategy. Low paid becomes less attractive to low-skilled foreign workers, if it's not supplemented by tax credits.
It's worth pointing out a LOT of marginals in the Midlands and South have higher-than-average tax credit take-up.
Is there some analysis on this.
I expect to see higher tax credit recipients less likely to vote, and also Midland and Southern marginal tax credit recipients claiming much less than Northern TCRs. If that is true, the increase in personal allowance will offset almost all of the 'loss'.
Annoyingly I can't find it right now, but I recently saw a ranked list of consituencies of tax credit take-up, based on the 2011 census.
Safe Labour seats often have very high unemployment rates (who aren't eligible for tax credits), while safe Tory seats typically have more retirees and people too rich for tax credits. By contrast, a lot of marginals have a lot of young families and people in work but fairly low-paid, which is exactly where tax credits are targeted - and the Tories would not have won this year if they'd not had a decent showing among that "strivers" group.
Even if you had a case you lose it by ignoring the tax allowance cuts and those affected most are those who want to work less than 16 hours and make up the difference with handouts. You also ignore the fact that many big low-paid employers are introducing the new Living wage or exceeding it. Finally you ignore all the polling that strongly supports the measures and the fact that your demented leader is opposed to ANY benefit cap at all.
Labour, LD and much of the press have underestimated the Osborne/Cameron strategy consistently since before 2010. Remind us all how that's going....
Strikes me that tax credit cuts are more of a wedge issue than Poll Tax ever was. M/C benefit from it (lower taxes), aspirational w/c support it (helps to reward the hard working w/c vs welfare claimants) and neither group think the cuts are unfair or unwarranted, so liberals in SW marginals are not 'disgusted enough' to vote for Corbyn.
Will not help Tories in city centre seats, though. But, they could feasibly win the 2020 election on lower share of the vote in E&W than 2015 as Labour stack up votes where they don't need them.
The "aspirational" low-paid workers are the very ones who will be hit in their pockets.
Not true, low paid workers who refuse to work more hours a week will be weaned off benefit dependency.
It's comments like this which gives me an insight into Tories' minds. It's become obvious through these discussions that many of them are genuinely unaware of just how many people are on tax credits (because it's so hard for people to live on the pathetic wages at the bottom of the scale).
Not this Tory.
The fact is that tax credits are increasingly propping up an entire generation of workers, rather than targetting a marginal band of workers to enter work (i.e. to provide proper inentives).
That's exactly the reason we have to go back to a system with far fewer recipients and confront low pay through other means.
It's worth pointing out a LOT of marginals in the Midlands and South have higher-than-average tax credit take-up.
Is there some analysis on this.
I expect to see higher tax credit recipients less likely to vote, and also Midland and Southern marginal tax credit recipients claiming much less than Northern TCRs. If that is true, the increase in personal allowance will offset almost all of the 'loss'.
Annoyingly I can't find it right now, but I recently saw a ranked list of consituencies of tax credit take-up, based on the 2011 census.
Safe Labour seats often have very high unemployment rates (who aren't eligible for tax credits), while safe Tory seats typically have more retirees and people too rich for tax credits. By contrast, a lot of marginals have a lot of young families and people in work but fairly low-paid, which is exactly where tax credits are targeted - and the Tories would not have won this year if they'd not had a decent showing among that "strivers" group.
All makes sense. The difference, as ever, will be in the detail. I'd be surprised if Osborne would make a blunder with the group who won 2015 for him. I expect there also to be more of a private-sector based electorate in Midlands/South compared to up North, who are less unionised and also less Labour inclined.
Would be interested in the link if you do find it.
Strikes me that tax credit cuts are more of a wedge issue than Poll Tax ever was. M/C benefit from it (lower taxes), aspirational w/c support it (helps to reward the hard working w/c vs welfare claimants) and neither group think the cuts are unfair or unwarranted, so liberals in SW marginals are not 'disgusted enough' to vote for Corbyn.
Will not help Tories in city centre seats, though. But, they could feasibly win the 2020 election on lower share of the vote in E&W than 2015 as Labour stack up votes where they don't need them.
The "aspirational" low-paid workers are the very ones who will be hit in their pockets.
Not true, low paid workers who refuse to work more hours a week will be weaned off benefit dependency.
It's comments like this which gives me an insight into Tories' minds. It's become obvious through these discussions that many of them are genuinely unaware of just how many people are on tax credits (because it's so hard for people to live on the pathetic wages at the bottom of the scale).
Interestingly, in my local marginal (well, used to be: now five figure majority) there are WWC UKIP votes to be mopped up - order families, and especially men, who are fed up with subsidising a younger generation working half the hours that they have had to and claiming tax credits.
Combine this with the immigration difference it will make, and I'd expect Tories to take seats off Labour in the South and Midlands (outside of central London, of course).
Real wages are rising quite quickly over the last 18 months and the increase in the NMW (rebranded) will help too. And of course the low paid now basically don't pay tax.
But the problem is that in work benefits went from £4bn to £28bn over a very short period of time. The current generosity means that government spending has not gone down with increasing employment, it has gone up. The policy must be to put the cost of living on those who employ them, not the state. The announcements by the likes of Costas and Sainsbury's have been very welcome.
No one wants the poor to suffer but there is, as I have been saying on here for some years, a question of how much of a good thing we can afford. Low paid, part time employment is better than people being unemployed but the balance between the state and the employer needs to be got right.
Real wages are rising quite quickly over the last 18 months and the increase in the NMW (rebranded) will help too. And of course the low paid now basically don't pay tax.
But the problem is that in work benefits went from £4bn to £28bn over a very short period of time. The current generosity means that government spending has not gone down with increasing employment, it has gone up. The policy must be to put the cost of living on those who employ them, not the state. The announcements by the likes of Costas and Sainsbury's have been very welcome.
No one wants the poor to suffer but there is, as I have been saying on here for some years, a question of how much of a good thing we can afford. Low paid, part time employment is better than people being unemployed but the balance between the state and the employer needs to be got right.
Strikes me that tax credit cuts are more of a wedge issue than Poll Tax ever was. M/C benefit from it (lower taxes), aspirational w/c support it (helps to reward the hard working w/c vs welfare claimants) and neither group think the cuts are unfair or unwarranted, so liberals in SW marginals are not 'disgusted enough' to vote for Corbyn.
Will not help Tories in city centre seats, though. But, they could feasibly win the 2020 election on lower share of the vote in E&W than 2015 as Labour stack up votes where they don't need them.
The "aspirational" low-paid workers are the very ones who will be hit in their pockets.
It would be good to see an analysis of the precise cut offs of who is better off and worse off by the changes, and what sort of jobs are involved at each point.
This is what I was talking about in the previous thread... The Tories are striding confidently forth on deceptively thin ice, having won a wafer-thin majority for the first time in decades, built by a not-to-repeated confluence of lucky circumstances, and admittedly skilful and ruthless exploitation of the above. This luck, combined with current, probably short-lived, turmoil amongst their opponents and the continued blanket support of a fading but still powerful media, is obscuring the fact that the structural weaknesses that saw them out of power for 13 years, and ensured that even on return to power after three terms they couldn't win a majority, have not gone away and are deepening. And to those saying you can add UKIP as conservatives in all but name, it is simply not true - the majority of UKIP voters have left-leaning economic views, where it counts. The simple fact is, unlike the 80s and 90s, where the Tories could court popularity with conjuring tricks funded by mass privatisations, huge technological change and oil revenues, that is a sleight of hand they can't pull off again. Unlike pre-1992, the Tories aren't starting from a large majority. They know this, hence every attempt in the book to rig things in their favour whilst they hold power, with the gagging of pressure groups, removal of opposition funding, stacking the unelected lords whilst reducing the number of elected representatives, denouncing political opponents a threat to security in rhetoric that wouldn't be out of place in Ceacescu's Romania, hobbling freedom of information requests, attacking what is left of the (officially, at least) impartial media, instigating unprecedented assaults on the rights of freedom of association, making massive inroads on individual privacy rights, disembowelling international human rights obligations, and many more craven attacks on everything that might step in the way of their continued power once their real effects of their policies start to make themselves felt. More than ever we need a genuine alternative to be in place ready to attack when the time is right.
This is what I was talking about in the previous thread... The Tories are striding confidently forth on deceptively thin ice, having won a wafer-thin majority for the first time in decades, built by a not-to-repeated confluence of lucky circumstances, and admittedly skilful and ruthless exploitation of the above. This luck, combined with current, probably short-lived, turmoil amongst their opponents and the continued blanket support of a fading but still powerful media, is obscuring the fact that the structural weaknesses that saw them out of power for 13 years, and ensured that even on return to power after three terms they couldn't win a majority, have not gone away and are deepening. And to those saying you can add UKIP as conservatives in all but name, it is simply not true - the majority of UKIP voters have left-leaning economic views, where it counts. The simple fact is, unlike the 80s and 90s, where the Tories could court popularity with conjuring tricks funded by mass privatisations, huge technological change and oil revenues, that is a sleight of hand they can't pull off again. Unlike pre-1992, the Tories aren't starting from a large majority. They know this, hence every attempt in the book to rig things in their favour whilst they hold power, with the gagging of pressure groups, removal of opposition funding, stacking the unelected lords whilst reducing the number of elected representatives, denouncing political opponents a threat to security in rhetoric that wouldn't be out of place in Ceacescu's Romania, hobbling freedom of information requests, attacking what is left of the (officially, at least) impartial media, instigating unprecedented assaults on the rights of freedom of association, making massive inroads on individual privacy rights, disembowelling international human rights obligations, and many more craven attacks on everything that might step in the way of their continued power once their real effects of their policies start to make themselves felt. More than ever we need a genuine alternative to be in place ready to attack when the time is right.
Wow. What a rant.
Presumably the motivation for these blinkered viewpoints is mostly that the alternative viewpoint, that the electorate has moved to the right at the same time, hilariously, as the Labour party keeps moving further left, is unthinkable to you?
Strikes me that tax credit cuts are more of a wedge issue than Poll Tax ever was. M/C benefit from it (lower taxes), aspirational w/c support it (helps to reward the hard working w/c vs welfare claimants) and neither group think the cuts are unfair or unwarranted, so liberals in SW marginals are not 'disgusted enough' to vote for Corbyn.
Will not help Tories in city centre seats, though. But, they could feasibly win the 2020 election on lower share of the vote in E&W than 2015 as Labour stack up votes where they don't need them.
The "aspirational" low-paid workers are the very ones who will be hit in their pockets.
It would be good to see an analysis of the precise cut offs of who is better off and worse off by the changes, and what sort of jobs are involved at each point.
By the way I answered your points last thread. Not saying we have to re-open the discussion, just wanted you to know.
The fact is that tax credits are increasingly propping up an entire generation of workers, rather than targetting a marginal band of workers to enter work (i.e. to provide proper inentives).
That's exactly the reason we have to go back to a system with far fewer recipients and confront low pay through other means.
Why should we confront low pay? Could we not confront the cost of living instead?
This is what I was talking about in the previous thread... The Tories are striding confidently forth on deceptively thin ice, having won a wafer-thin majority for the first time in decades, built by a not-to-repeated confluence of lucky circumstances, and admittedly skilful and ruthless exploitation of the above. This luck, combined with current, probably short-lived, turmoil amongst their opponents and the continued blanket support of a fading but still powerful media, is obscuring the fact that the structural weaknesses that saw them out of power for 13 years, and ensured that even on return to power after three terms they couldn't win a majority, have not gone away and are deepening. And to those saying you can add UKIP as conservatives in all but name, it is simply not true - the majority of UKIP voters have left-leaning economic views, where it counts. The simple fact is, unlike the 80s and 90s, where the Tories could court popularity with conjuring tricks funded by mass privatisations, huge technological change and oil revenues, that is a sleight of hand they can't pull off again. Unlike pre-1992, the Tories aren't starting from a large majority. They know this, hence every attempt in the book to rig things in their favour whilst they hold power, with the gagging of pressure groups, removal of opposition funding, stacking the unelected lords whilst reducing the number of elected representatives, denouncing political opponents a threat to security in rhetoric that wouldn't be out of place in Ceacescu's Romania, hobbling freedom of information requests, attacking what is left of the (officially, at least) impartial media, instigating unprecedented assaults on the rights of freedom of association, making massive inroads on individual privacy rights, disembowelling international human rights obligations, and many more craven attacks on everything that might step in the way of their continued power once their real effects of their policies start to make themselves felt. More than ever we need a genuine alternative to be in place ready to attack when the time is right.
Your laudable instincts are far too coloured by your political prejudices.
The fact is that tax credits are increasingly propping up an entire generation of workers, rather than targetting a marginal band of workers to enter work (i.e. to provide proper inentives).
That's exactly the reason we have to go back to a system with far fewer recipients and confront low pay through other means.
Why should we confront low pay? Could we not confront the cost of living instead?
The fact is that tax credits are increasingly propping up an entire generation of workers, rather than targetting a marginal band of workers to enter work (i.e. to provide proper inentives).
That's exactly the reason we have to go back to a system with far fewer recipients and confront low pay through other means.
Why should we confront low pay? Could we not confront the cost of living instead?
With the exception of housing costs in the south-east (and a lesser extent elsewhere), I don't see a way of reducing the cost of living beyond what the government is currently trying to do.
It was interesting to see Ruth Davidson on the TV whilst I was at the gym this morning not only with the same sentiments but even the same words as I have used on here.
She was being asked about the EU. She described it as a cost benefit analysis that she did not feel very strongly and compared and contrasted it with the referendum which was visceral and about our very sense of identity, who we are.
She is more obviously pro EU than I am but her positioning was interesting. She was asked if she would be campaigning for In no matter what deal Cameron brings back. Her response is, well I don' think his deal will be any the worse than we have right now and although there are frustrations on balance In is in our interests. I suspect we will hear a lot more of that line.
Those of us who have long memories will recall what a disaster that the implementation of tax credits was, the massive overpayments and the hurried law changes because of the demands for repayment. The whole idea was a disaster from start to finish. There has to be a better system.
Those of us who have long memories will recall what a disaster that the implementation of tax credits was, the massive overpayments and the hurried law changes because of the demands for repayment. The whole idea was a disaster from start to finish. There has to be a better system.
It is still a system that really only works for those on consistent wages and hours. And fewer and fewer of our workforce works like that. The millions who are self employed, who work on zero hours contracts, who juggle 2 different jobs, who get erratic overtime, who drift in and out of casual employment, for all these and more it is a nightmare.
Those of us who have long memories will recall what a disaster that the implementation of tax credits was, the massive overpayments and the hurried law changes because of the demands for repayment. The whole idea was a disaster from start to finish. There has to be a better system.
Indeed. The same can be said of the welfare/tax system in general. The less that people rely on the state to make accurate calculations, the more efficient it will become.
The fact is that tax credits are increasingly propping up an entire generation of workers, rather than targetting a marginal band of workers to enter work (i.e. to provide proper inentives).
That's exactly the reason we have to go back to a system with far fewer recipients and confront low pay through other means.
Why should we confront low pay? Could we not confront the cost of living instead?
With the exception of housing costs in the south-east (and a lesser extent elsewhere), I don't see a way of reducing the cost of living beyond what the government is currently trying to do.
It's a big exception though isn't it? Property gradually being deflated would also result in cheaper rents for Shops, and high street prices being able to fall. The other big one being energy costs.
It's not my area of expertise, and I am open to being proved wrong, I just fail to see how pushing wages up when we're being outstripped by cheap foreign labour can be a good thing.
It was interesting to see Ruth Davidson on the TV whilst I was at the gym this morning not only with the same sentiments but even the same words as I have used on here.
She was being asked about the EU. She described it as a cost benefit analysis that she did not feel very strongly and compared and contrasted it with the referendum which was visceral and about our very sense of identity, who we are.
She is more obviously pro EU than I am but her positioning was interesting. She was asked if she would be campaigning for In no matter what deal Cameron brings back. Her response is, well I don' think his deal will be any the worse than we have right now and although there are frustrations on balance In is in our interests. I suspect we will hear a lot more of that line.
"on balance In is in our interests"
If you don't own a home, then you should vote to Leave. If you want your children to be able to afford their own home, then you should vote to Leave.
The simple fact is that without controlling immigration, house prices will not come down due to demand. And immigration will never be controlled without leaving the EU.
Mr. Hopkins, still think In has the advantage by a distance. The status quo and fear of the unknown will influence the swing voters, however grudgingly, to back our continued presence in the EU. An In will be taken by the EU to mean full steam ahead for ridiculous federalisation. I'd guess a few will even call for us to join Shengen/the euro amidst claims the referendum result shows the British people want more EU.
The fact is that tax credits are increasingly propping up an entire generation of workers, rather than targetting a marginal band of workers to enter work (i.e. to provide proper inentives).
That's exactly the reason we have to go back to a system with far fewer recipients and confront low pay through other means.
Why should we confront low pay? Could we not confront the cost of living instead?
With the exception of housing costs in the south-east (and a lesser extent elsewhere), I don't see a way of reducing the cost of living beyond what the government is currently trying to do.
It's a big exception though isn't it? Property gradually being deflated would also result in cheaper rents for Shops, and high street prices being able to fall. The other big one being energy costs.
It's not my area of expertise, and I am open to being proved wrong, I just fail to see how pushing wages up when we're being outstripped by cheap foreign labour can be a good thing.
Not my area of expertise either, but commercial property is falling in sale value, rents are pretty static, and high street prices are falling.
I.e. cost of living is probably as low as it goes.
That said, removing the regulation on housebuilding/planning would be a fabulous way to help the economy.
The fact is that tax credits are increasingly propping up an entire generation of workers, rather than targetting a marginal band of workers to enter work (i.e. to provide proper inentives).
That's exactly the reason we have to go back to a system with far fewer recipients and confront low pay through other means.
Why should we confront low pay? Could we not confront the cost of living instead?
With the exception of housing costs in the south-east (and a lesser extent elsewhere), I don't see a way of reducing the cost of living beyond what the government is currently trying to do.
We could do a lot to reduce the cost of living. unfortunately we are unlikely because it will upset some special interest, and as with so many examples, where there is a concentrated benefit, and a widely spread cost, the concentrated benefit will in politicalised terms, beat the widely spread cost, even those the cost is larger.
The easiest way would be to reduce import tariffs, and barriers, which would lower the cost of lots of things including food, which we all eat, but upset farmers.
We could relax the rules for child care provides, even adopting the rules of that very sensible contrary Denmark, would lead to a cost reduction of 25%.
Or we could reduce the market distortions, towards 'Green' energy. and let energy bills come down by perhaps 20% in a few years.
Or we could relax the planning rules that stop new homes being built, that would allow supply to match demand, and make rents, and hose prise lower than they would be at the moment.
Or perhaps the most radical we would lower/eliminate corporation tax, that would attract the investment that would and though the invisible hand of the market would force wages up and prises down, improving the standard of living or all, to a far grater extent then tax money spent by government bureaucrats ever will.
The fact is that tax credits are increasingly propping up an entire generation of workers, rather than targetting a marginal band of workers to enter work (i.e. to provide proper inentives).
That's exactly the reason we have to go back to a system with far fewer recipients and confront low pay through other means.
Why should we confront low pay? Could we not confront the cost of living instead?
With the exception of housing costs in the south-east (and a lesser extent elsewhere), I don't see a way of reducing the cost of living beyond what the government is currently trying to do.
It's a big exception though isn't it? Property gradually being deflated would also result in cheaper rents for Shops, and high street prices being able to fall. The other big one being energy costs.
It's not my area of expertise, and I am open to being proved wrong, I just fail to see how pushing wages up when we're being outstripped by cheap foreign labour can be a good thing.
Inflation is already at zero. The risks of deflation are almost certainly over stated (Robert did a good piece on this on his site http://www.thstailwinds.com/economics-101/ ) but they are not non existent.
The cost of housing is an issue for many in the south, especially in London, but overall the cost of living is rising at the lowest rate in my lifetime.
The fact is that tax credits are increasingly propping up an entire generation of workers, rather than targetting a marginal band of workers to enter work (i.e. to provide proper inentives).
That's exactly the reason we have to go back to a system with far fewer recipients and confront low pay through other means.
Why should we confront low pay? Could we not confront the cost of living instead?
With the exception of housing costs in the south-east (and a lesser extent elsewhere), I don't see a way of reducing the cost of living beyond what the government is currently trying to do.
We could do a lot to reduce the cost of living. unfortunately we are unlikely because it will upset some special interest, and as with so many examples, where there is a concentrated benefit, and a widely spread cost, the concentrated benefit will in politicalised terms, beat the widely spread cost, even those the cost is larger.
The easiest way would be to reduce import tariffs, and barriers, which would lower the cost of lots of things including food, which we all eat, but upset farmers.
We could relax the rules for child care provides, even adopting the rules of that very sensible contrary Denmark, would lead to a cost reduction of 25%.
Or we could reduce the market distortions, towards 'Green' energy. and let energy bills come down by perhaps 20% in a few years.
Or we could relax the planning rules that stop new homes being built, that would allow supply to match demand, and make rents, and hose prise lower than they would be at the moment.
Or perhaps the most radical we would lower/eliminate corporation tax, that would attract the investment that would and though the invisible hand of the market would force wages up and prises down, improving the standard of living or all, to a far grater extent then tax money spent by government bureaucrats ever will.
I'd be for the last if only to hear the squeals from the Corbynistas.....
I honestly don't think many on the left understand that the owners of capital are taxed on income from that capital.....
I think what gets me most is that a probably untrue rumour about him putting his dick in a pig when he was 20 will be his legacy, not that he lied to the low paid to win an election, then fucked them over within the year.
One of those things doesn't matter. The other one does.
1) imported cheap labour 2) imported cheaper factor production costs (ie cheap labour abroad ie globalisation)
Not sure there is much to do about those, perhaps the former a bit; these are structural changes to the UK economy.
The danger is two-fold. First that those affected up with it will not put. The second is that a political party thinks it can pretend this is not the case.
I think what gets me most is that a probably untrue rumour about him putting his dick in a pig when he was 20 will be his legacy, not that he lied to the low paid to win an election, then fucked them over within the year.
One of those things doesn't matter. The other one does.
Where's the decency in our politics?
Not really news, though, surely? It was announced in the budget.
The fact is that tax credits are increasingly propping up an entire generation of workers, rather than targetting a marginal band of workers to enter work (i.e. to provide proper inentives).
That's exactly the reason we have to go back to a system with far fewer recipients and confront low pay through other means.
Why should we confront low pay? Could we not confront the cost of living instead?
With the exception of housing costs in the south-east (and a lesser extent elsewhere), I don't see a way of reducing the cost of living beyond what the government is currently trying to do.
We could do a lot to reduce the cost of living. unfortunately we are unlikely because it will upset some special interest, and as with so many examples, where there is a concentrated benefit, and a widely spread cost, the concentrated benefit will in politicalised terms, beat the widely spread cost, even those the cost is larger.
The easiest way would be to reduce import tariffs, and barriers, which would lower the cost of lots of things including food, which we all eat, but upset farmers.
We could relax the rules for child care provides, even adopting the rules of that very sensible contrary Denmark, would lead to a cost reduction of 25%.
Or we could reduce the market distortions, towards 'Green' energy. and let energy bills come down by perhaps 20% in a few years.
Or we could relax the planning rules that stop new homes being built, that would allow supply to match demand, and make rents, and hose prise lower than they would be at the moment.
Or perhaps the most radical we would lower/eliminate corporation tax, that would attract the investment that would and though the invisible hand of the market would force wages up and prises down, improving the standard of living or all, to a far grater extent then tax money spent by government bureaucrats ever will.
I'd be for the last if only to hear the squeals from the Corbynistas.....
I honestly don't think many on the left understand that the owners of capital are taxed on income from that capital.....
Thanks Mortimer,
Corporation tax is razed because it costs the politicians very little, companies don't have votes, and most people do don't see the lost opportunities that it course, and the damage it does to the living standards of the poorest in our society.
The worrying thing is when you hear the Crbyistas and other hard left, advocating for it, as if it was a morally good thing.
Michelle Thomson: 23 years of working in the financial services sector, before starting her own business in building up a portfolio of buy to let and corporate rental properties accessible through her her trading company: Your Property Shop. We have already seen from our Twitter exchanges that as MD of Business for Scotland Michelle is not a great fan of answering direct questions. Aside from Business for Scotland Ltd, Michelle has one active directorship: Your Property Shop Ltd (SC451292) - founded 05/13 and yet to file any accounts. She is also a Director of Edinburgh Global Property Investments ltd (SC342421) which ceased trading in 2011 and was dissolved in 2013; the balance sheet suggests this business never traded materially. She is also a Director of Michelle R Thomson Consulting ltd (SC377063) which is non-trading.
"Michelle R Thomson Consulting ltd"
What is she consulting about? And what is her fee?
Substantial - until she was fired (but not publicly) from the SNP front completely separate independent Business for Scotland
- 5,000 service families had bought homes through the armed forces help to buy scheme announced last year, to double the number of completed applications in the next year.
- service personnel and their relatives posted overseas can suspend their mobile phone contracts. Vodafone, Three, EE and 02 have all made commitments
Michelle Thomson: 23 years of working in the financial services sector, before starting her own business in building up a portfolio of buy to let and corporate rental properties accessible through her her trading company: Your Property Shop. We have already seen from our Twitter exchanges that as MD of Business for Scotland Michelle is not a great fan of answering direct questions. Aside from Business for Scotland Ltd, Michelle has one active directorship: Your Property Shop Ltd (SC451292) - founded 05/13 and yet to file any accounts. She is also a Director of Edinburgh Global Property Investments ltd (SC342421) which ceased trading in 2011 and was dissolved in 2013; the balance sheet suggests this business never traded materially. She is also a Director of Michelle R Thomson Consulting ltd (SC377063) which is non-trading.
"Michelle R Thomson Consulting ltd"
What is she consulting about? And what is her fee?
Substantial - until she was fired (but not publicly) from the SNP front completely separate independent Business for Scotland
We could do a lot to reduce the cost of living. unfortunately we are unlikely because it will upset some special interest, and as with so many examples, where there is a concentrated benefit, and a widely spread cost, the concentrated benefit will in politicalised terms, beat the widely spread cost, even those the cost is larger.
Not sure I understand your point. It's difficult to make a meaningful impact on the cost of living because few specific items make a substantial difference by themslves.
The easiest way would be to reduce import tariffs, and barriers, which would lower the cost of lots of things including food, which we all eat, but upset farmers.
We have very few import tariffs and, of course, none within the EU.
Whilst I would like to see us relax the common external tariffs, that would require leaving the EU.
We could relax the rules for child care provides, even adopting the rules of that very sensible contrary Denmark, would lead to a cost reduction of 25%.
Already on the agenda; doesn't seem to have cut costs unfortunately.
Or we could reduce the market distortions, towards 'Green' energy. and let energy bills come down by perhaps 20% in a few years.
Well reducing "green taxes" would cut energy bills by 5-10%, but no more than that - unless you propose a full set of new coal-fired power stations - but that's very long term.
Or we could relax the planning rules that stop new homes being built, that would allow supply to match demand, and make rents, and hose prise lower than they would be at the moment.
Or perhaps the most radical we would lower/eliminate corporation tax, that would attract the investment that would and though the invisible hand of the market would force wages up and prises down, improving the standard of living or all, to a far grater extent then tax money spent by government bureaucrats ever will.
Already the lowest corporation tax of an advanced economy - and well placed even outside that.
I agree rising wages is the thing that would make the most change. Housing would be second.
Much as I'd love to take credit, I didn't tip Nibali. Odds just weren't good enough in a crap shoot like that. IIRC he was about 5/2.
Was a magnificent attack on the descents, however.
You picked him for the win though didn't you? I'm gutted that I didn't back him as he was iirc 5's on Betfair. Always a bit wary of betting on one day races as they seem a bit of a lottery at times.
I think what gets me most is that a probably untrue rumour about him putting his dick in a pig when he was 20 will be his legacy, not that he lied to the low paid to win an election, then fucked them over within the year.
One of those things doesn't matter. The other one does.
Where's the decency in our politics?
Not really news, though, surely? It was announced in the budget.
Most of the million-or-so lowest paid will find out the news just before Christmas.
Once again the left march against democracy. Corbyn and co really should be able to draw some sort of line between democratic opposition, and opposition to democracy. It seems they can't.
If Business For Scotland is an SNP front, why would the party go on to nominate her as a PPC.
Logic escapes you, as usual.
Because they didn't do their homework?
Funny how Nicola knew she was the 'right person for the job' then suddenly knew 'nothing about her business affairs'
Its not me that logic has escaped......
You weren't posting your drivel about Nicola.
You posted that Thomson was sacked by Business for Scotland that BfS was an SNP front. Clearly you exist in some whacky parallel universe where every thing is confusing to you. But your grasp on reality surely can't be that bad that you think it is likely that an organisation would sack someone from a front then redeploy the same person in another role.
The frothing insanity with which desperate loyalists try to attack the SNP gets more comical by the day.
The closest thing I have ever come to feeling hate for anyone in politics was in helping take on the far left when I was at university. It's all coming back to me now. They really are disgusting scumbags. And the Corbynites will blame it all on the police, the media and the Tories, red and blue. Utter fuckwits.
If Business For Scotland is an SNP front, why would the party go on to nominate her as a PPC.
Logic escapes you, as usual.
Because they didn't do their homework?
Funny how Nicola knew she was the 'right person for the job' then suddenly knew 'nothing about her business affairs'
Its not me that logic has escaped......
You weren't posting your drivel about Nicola.
You posted that Thomson was sacked by Business for Scotland that BfS was an SNP front. Clearly you exist in some whacky parallel universe where every thing is confusing to you. But your grasp on reality surely can't be that bad that you think it is likely that an organisation would sack someone from a front then redeploy the same person in another role.
The frothing insanity with which desperate loyalists try to attack the SNP gets more comical by the day.
Comments
Hinkley Point power station, is that part of the long term economic plan? What plan has Cameron got for keeping the balance of payments deficit from growing? What is the plan for reducing house price inflation?
I see Andrew Marr was at his "interrupting best" this morning. I do wish David Cameron would challenge him more about this. It was obvious he was rushing the questions so he could get to Ashcroft's book.
It was quite clear on Sunday Politics that Isabel Oakshott has taken a real pasting on this. If I see her next week in Manchester, I might give her a piece of my mind!
OGH tweeted this on Watson.
Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB 6m6 minutes ago
LAB deputy Tom Watson is now rated as, 20% favourite on Betfair replace Mr Corbyn. The assassin maybe. The successor I'm not so sure.
Ned Donovan
Wow, 30 seconds out of the station in Manchester and already been spat on. Not even wearing my pass yet.
The others are a minefield, tried succsfully by the bookies before.
It's hardworking people, not families; tough choices and hard decisions, not hard choices and tough decisions.
No odds on 'Welcome, Comrades'?
If only the SNP had done as much digging on Michelle Thomson as this 'insane hater' blogger:
http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/who-do-business-for-scotland-represent.html
Michelle Thomson: 23 years of working in the financial services sector, before starting her own business in building up a portfolio of buy to let and corporate rental properties accessible through her her trading company: Your Property Shop. We have already seen from our Twitter exchanges that as MD of Business for Scotland Michelle is not a great fan of answering direct questions. Aside from Business for Scotland Ltd, Michelle has one active directorship: Your Property Shop Ltd (SC451292) - founded 05/13 and yet to file any accounts. She is also a Director of Edinburgh Global Property Investments ltd (SC342421) which ceased trading in 2011 and was dissolved in 2013; the balance sheet suggests this business never traded materially. She is also a Director of Michelle R Thomson Consulting ltd (SC377063) which is non-trading.
Police officer has me and @owenjbennett protected. Says we can't leave this area because "you're going to get lynched in a minute"
The atmosphere here is poisonous.
Anyhooo, I'm just putting the finishing touches on my "Austerity Gives Me The Horn" placard.
What is she consulting about?
And what is her fee?
https://twitter.com/bbcnickrobinson/status/650592777538027520
The sound you hear are the phones of Fleet Street calling the Labour press office, asking if their leader support journalists being spat on
The sound you hear are the phones of Fleet Street calling the Labour press office, asking if their leader support journalists being spat on
Mind you, at the stakes permitted you won't get rich. I'm not bothering to bet on it.
They are both a clever way though to increase taxes without saying so, but it damages your credibility if people see their tax bills suddenly rising.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13802172.Emails_reveal_how_economic_case_for_independence_was_undermined_by_scandal_hit_Michelle_Thomson/
Will not help Tories in city centre seats, though. But, they could feasibly win the 2020 election on lower share of the vote in E&W than 2015 as Labour stack up votes where they don't need them.
Very clear hits on Corbynites.
Probably won't bet on this market, but Party Of The Workers, and Magic Money Tree would probably tempt me the most.
But it has opened the flood gates for investigating other SNP MP's:
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/snp-selection-under-fire-over-second-mp-1-3906656
- trustifarian
- public sector worker
- unemployed
- student in Meaningless Degree Studies
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hchrzHduplI
I expect to see higher tax credit recipients less likely to vote, and also Midland and Southern marginal tax credit recipients claiming much less than Northern TCRs. If that is true, the increase in personal allowance will offset almost all of the 'loss'.
CNN alters shooters photo to make him look white. #tcot http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/10/cnn-alters-photo-of-umpqua-killer-chris-harper-mercer-to-make-him-look-white/#st_refDomain=t.co&st_refQuery=/6Z8m07DEPZ …
Why would CNN go so far to alter the truth?
Anyway I thought we weren't going to talk about him...
Safe Labour seats often have very high unemployment rates (who aren't eligible for tax credits), while safe Tory seats typically have more retirees and people too rich for tax credits. By contrast, a lot of marginals have a lot of young families and people in work but fairly low-paid, which is exactly where tax credits are targeted - and the Tories would not have won this year if they'd not had a decent showing among that "strivers" group.
It also ties in with the government's immigration strategy. Low paid becomes less attractive to low-skilled foreign workers, if it's not supplemented by tax credits.
Labour, LD and much of the press have underestimated the Osborne/Cameron strategy consistently since before 2010. Remind us all how that's going....
The fact is that tax credits are increasingly propping up an entire generation of workers, rather than targetting a marginal band of workers to enter work (i.e. to provide proper inentives).
That's exactly the reason we have to go back to a system with far fewer recipients and confront low pay through other means.
All makes sense. The difference, as ever, will be in the detail. I'd be surprised if Osborne would make a blunder with the group who won 2015 for him. I expect there also to be more of a private-sector based electorate in Midlands/South compared to up North, who are less unionised and also less Labour inclined.
Would be interested in the link if you do find it.
Combine this with the immigration difference it will make, and I'd expect Tories to take seats off Labour in the South and Midlands (outside of central London, of course).
But the problem is that in work benefits went from £4bn to £28bn over a very short period of time. The current generosity means that government spending has not gone down with increasing employment, it has gone up. The policy must be to put the cost of living on those who employ them, not the state. The announcements by the likes of Costas and Sainsbury's have been very welcome.
No one wants the poor to suffer but there is, as I have been saying on here for some years, a question of how much of a good thing we can afford. Low paid, part time employment is better than people being unemployed but the balance between the state and the employer needs to be got right.
Exeter (Bradshaw) springs to mind, but which other seats are there?
But, in general, you're correct - Midlands are going to be real targets for us Blues in 2020.
And to those saying you can add UKIP as conservatives in all but name, it is simply not true - the majority of UKIP voters have left-leaning economic views, where it counts. The simple fact is, unlike the 80s and 90s, where the Tories could court popularity with conjuring tricks funded by mass privatisations, huge technological change and oil revenues, that is a sleight of hand they can't pull off again. Unlike pre-1992, the Tories aren't starting from a large majority. They know this, hence every attempt in the book to rig things in their favour whilst they hold power, with the gagging of pressure groups, removal of opposition funding, stacking the unelected lords whilst reducing the number of elected representatives, denouncing political opponents a threat to security in rhetoric that wouldn't be out of place in Ceacescu's Romania, hobbling freedom of information requests, attacking what is left of the (officially, at least) impartial media, instigating unprecedented assaults on the rights of freedom of association, making massive inroads on individual privacy rights, disembowelling international human rights obligations, and many more craven attacks on everything that might step in the way of their continued power once their real effects of their policies start to make themselves felt.
More than ever we need a genuine alternative to be in place ready to attack when the time is right.
Presumably the motivation for these blinkered viewpoints is mostly that the alternative viewpoint, that the electorate has moved to the right at the same time, hilariously, as the Labour party keeps moving further left, is unthinkable to you?
Where was it in the manifesto?
In the grand scheme of things, I know which is worse...
She was being asked about the EU. She described it as a cost benefit analysis that she did not feel very strongly and compared and contrasted it with the referendum which was visceral and about our very sense of identity, who we are.
She is more obviously pro EU than I am but her positioning was interesting. She was asked if she would be campaigning for In no matter what deal Cameron brings back. Her response is, well I don' think his deal will be any the worse than we have right now and although there are frustrations on balance In is in our interests. I suspect we will hear a lot more of that line.
It's not my area of expertise, and I am open to being proved wrong, I just fail to see how pushing wages up when we're being outstripped by cheap foreign labour can be a good thing.
"on balance In is in our interests"
If you don't own a home, then you should vote to Leave. If you want your children to be able to afford their own home, then you should vote to Leave.
The simple fact is that without controlling immigration, house prices will not come down due to demand. And immigration will never be controlled without leaving the EU.
This will win it for OUT in the end.
I.e. cost of living is probably as low as it goes.
That said, removing the regulation on housebuilding/planning would be a fabulous way to help the economy.
The easiest way would be to reduce import tariffs, and barriers, which would lower the cost of lots of things including food, which we all eat, but upset farmers.
We could relax the rules for child care provides, even adopting the rules of that very sensible contrary Denmark, would lead to a cost reduction of 25%.
Or we could reduce the market distortions, towards 'Green' energy. and let energy bills come down by perhaps 20% in a few years.
Or we could relax the planning rules that stop new homes being built, that would allow supply to match demand, and make rents, and hose prise lower than they would be at the moment.
Or perhaps the most radical we would lower/eliminate corporation tax, that would attract the investment that would and though the invisible hand of the market would force wages up and prises down, improving the standard of living or all, to a far grater extent then tax money spent by government bureaucrats ever will.
The cost of housing is an issue for many in the south, especially in London, but overall the cost of living is rising at the lowest rate in my lifetime.
I honestly don't think many on the left understand that the owners of capital are taxed on income from that capital.....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32526461
I think what gets me most is that a probably untrue rumour about him putting his dick in a pig when he was 20 will be his legacy, not that he lied to the low paid to win an election, then fucked them over within the year.
One of those things doesn't matter. The other one does.
Where's the decency in our politics?
1) imported cheap labour
2) imported cheaper factor production costs (ie cheap labour abroad ie globalisation)
Not sure there is much to do about those, perhaps the former a bit; these are structural changes to the UK economy.
The danger is two-fold. First that those affected up with it will not put. The second is that a political party thinks it can pretend this is not the case.
Thanks Mortimer,
Corporation tax is razed because it costs the politicians very little, companies don't have votes, and most people do don't see the lost opportunities that it course, and the damage it does to the living standards of the poorest in our society.
The worrying thing is when you hear the Crbyistas and other hard left, advocating for it, as if it was a morally good thing.
Logic escapes you, as usual.
Must be getting crowded on the Outrage Bus, not to mention strange to see it overflowing with the hard left and PB Tories.
- 5,000 service families had bought homes through the armed forces help to buy scheme announced last year, to double the number of completed applications in the next year.
- service personnel and their relatives posted overseas can suspend their mobile phone contracts. Vodafone, Three, EE and 02 have all made commitments
Was a magnificent attack on the descents, however.
I spat on a Tory, son.
But he was a journalist...
Umm...
Funny how Nicola knew she was the 'right person for the job' then suddenly knew 'nothing about her business affairs'
Its not me that logic has escaped......
Whilst I would like to see us relax the common external tariffs, that would require leaving the EU. Already on the agenda; doesn't seem to have cut costs unfortunately.
http://www.theguardian.com/money/2013/jan/29/childcare-restrictions-relaxed-minister-announces Well reducing "green taxes" would cut energy bills by 5-10%, but no more than that - unless you propose a full set of new coal-fired power stations - but that's very long term. Many such attempts being made:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33472405
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/simplified-regulations-will-make-planning-easier
etc.
Already the lowest corporation tax of an advanced economy - and well placed even outside that.
I agree rising wages is the thing that would make the most change. Housing would be second.
- Tele
- Huff Post
- Guardian
- Mirror
- C4
either spat at, physically jostled/threatened or called Tory Scum - including Kevin Maguire!
An ugly day that's won no friends for Kinder Politics.
I'm gutted that I didn't back him as he was iirc 5's on Betfair.
Always a bit wary of betting on one day races as they seem a bit of a lottery at times.
You posted that Thomson was sacked by Business for Scotland that BfS was an SNP front. Clearly you exist in some whacky parallel universe where every thing is confusing to you. But your grasp on reality surely can't be that bad that you think it is likely that an organisation would sack someone from a front then redeploy the same person in another role.
The frothing insanity with which desperate loyalists try to attack the SNP gets more comical by the day.
shouldn'that be Lieutenant Uhura ?