It's odd that John McDonnell - who lambasted the government for spending a mythical £120bn on 'corporate welfare' - is now lambasting Osborne for not providing corporate welfare.
Anyone who thinks only core Labour voters in safe Lab seats is going to be affected is in for a surprise.
And you are assuming that every single one of them will all lose the maximum when set against the tax changes and wage changes and that none of them will alter their work arrangements to adapt to the new reality. You also appear to assume that none of them already voted Labour and that they will all now switch. I think you've been taking something in your tea Alice which has clouded your judgement.
"I don't want the Tories in this country. I don't think there's a place for them in our society. We need to get rid of them now. I have literally no idea how they won the election - I don't know anyone who voted for them."
Anyone who thinks only core Labour voters in safe Lab seats is going to be affected is in for a surprise.
Your analysis "this far outstrips the Tory majority" only makes sense if any of those on tax credits voted Conservative or did not vote. Otherwise if they all voted Labour at the last GE, no impact.
This business rate change, what are the risks? My local Tory council has always been asking for this type of change so I've never seen it portrayed as being a bad thing, but there is always another side, if not always a convincing one, so I'm curious.
Is this a "Sim City" type approach to building business and infrastructure to support commerce and the workforce?
The upside of course is we could end up we could end up with a Zoo and a colloseium in every council area.
A typical marginal constituency: Halesowen & Rowley Regis. As of 2011, 24% of constituents received tax credits (slightly above the national average). That far outstrips the current 7% Tory majority. Dudley South: 25% on tax credits, 11% Tory majority Thurrock: 27% on tax credits, 1% Tory majority http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/HTMLDocs/dvc174/index.html Anyone who thinks only core Labour voters in safe Lab seats is going to be affected is in for a surprise.
Danny565. I do wonder about the modelling abilities that the Treasury has in working this out. One unclear aspect is whether this is solely those who have a worker on circa 15 hours who could then overcome the hit by adding more hours of work. One complainant in the media only did 16 hours. So if she added just 5 hours a week for 45 weeks @ £7 she would take home more than the hit she was complaining about.
I - like I suspect the vast majority of the electorate - didn't actually see Osborne's speech so I can only judge it based on its content and the associated analysis in the media.
That is what will have the most influence on Osborne's prospects for leading the Tory party. How well he speaks will only matter to a tiny number of political anoraks.
Er No. Osborne will be judged first by the 300+ Conservative MPs and if he gets past them he has to be elected by the Conservative party membership.
And if they have any sense they will judge him on what he says not how he says it. Because that is what will interest the electorate and give those 300 MPs the best chance of keeping their seats.
So Ed M did not lose because he was a boring speaker who was out of touch?
G Osborne is therefore going to be PM ..:-)
(he may be a great strategist but he does not look like a PM, nor talk like a PM..)
Oratory can be overrated. Kinnock was a great orator but a fat lot of good it did him.
Honestly, can anyone remember a single word or memorable phrase any politician has said in one of these speeches?
Osborne may not be a good speech maker but by comparison with people like his rivals within the party he is streets ahead. Boris is a fantastic speaker but that's all he is these days. Osborne is doing stuff. Boris is just commenting on it.
That's what Ed Miliband supporters said for the five years up to 2015. (Ironically, I'm with you on this -- we elect parties not presidents -- but still.)
Anyone who thinks only core Labour voters in safe Lab seats is going to be affected is in for a surprise.
And you are assuming that every single one of them will all lose the maximum when set against the tax changes and wage changes and that none of them will alter their work arrangements to adapt to the new reality. You also appear to assume that none of them already voted Labour and that they will all now switch. I think you've been taking something in your tea Alice which has clouded your judgement.
The IFS has confirmed that the vast majority of people on tax credits will see their incomes cut, even after taking into account the increase in the minimum wage.
Given how high the proportion of tax-credit recipients is in many of the Midlands and Southern marginals, it is inconceivable that the Tories would not have got the votes of a decent slice of them this year. No party has ever won without a good showing with the C2 "strivers" where tax credits are concentrated.
A typical marginal constituency: Halesowen & Rowley Regis. As of 2011, 24% of constituents received tax credits (slightly above the national average). That far outstrips the current 7% Tory majority. Dudley South: 25% on tax credits, 11% Tory majority Thurrock: 27% on tax credits, 1% Tory majority http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/HTMLDocs/dvc174/index.html Anyone who thinks only core Labour voters in safe Lab seats is going to be affected is in for a surprise.
Danny565. I do wonder about the modelling abilities that the Treasury has in working this out. One unclear aspect is whether this is solely those who have a worker on circa 15 hours who could then overcome the hit by adding more hours of work. One complainant in the media only did 16 hours. So if she added just 5 hours a week for 45 weeks @ £7 she would take home more than the hit she was complaining about.
16 hours sounds suspiciously like two days' work, or two shifts. I'm not sure many employers will have the flexibility to suddenly grant an extra five eighths of a shift, or even a full one -- leaving aside any childcare implications for the extra day.
This business rate change, what are the risks? My local Tory council has always been asking for this type of change so I've never seen it portrayed as being a bad thing, but there is always another side, if not always a convincing one, so I'm curious.
I think the issue was that, in the 80s, certain loony left councils were soaking businesses to the detriment of their local economies, safe in the knowledge that central government would have to pick up the bill (unemployment) or face the political consequences.
That's why it was centralised.
Presumably Osborne thinks the loony left has gone away...
On the contrary, Osborne KNOWS that certain councils will abuse the new powers. And many of the businesses will move.. To better run councils.
Result - Loony left councils are shown to impoverish their constituents..
This is all about softening up the well run councils to Conservative thinking and isolating the nutters..
This business rate change, what are the risks? My local Tory council has always been asking for this type of change so I've never seen it portrayed as being a bad thing, but there is always another side, if not always a convincing one, so I'm curious.
I think the issue was that, in the 80s, certain loony left councils were soaking businesses to the detriment of their local economies, safe in the knowledge that central government would have to pick up the bill (unemployment) or face the political consequences.
That's why it was centralised.
Presumably Osborne thinks the loony left has gone away...
On the contrary, Osborne KNOWS that certain councils will abuse the new powers. And many of the businesses will move.. To better run councils.
Result - Loony left councils are shown to impoverish their constituents..
This is all about softening up the well run councils to Conservative thinking and isolating the nutters..
Anyone who thinks only core Labour voters in safe Lab seats is going to be affected is in for a surprise.
Your analysis "this far outstrips the Tory majority" only makes sense if any of those on tax credits voted Conservative or did not vote. Otherwise if they all voted Labour at the last GE, no impact.
I suggest you recalibrate your thinking :-)
Careful -- it may be you who needs to reverse ferret if Plato et al are right that HMG has indeed cottoned onto this and will cushion the blow.
Osborne was speaking out to the country in nearly everything he did
Corbyn was speaking out to the conference in nearly everything he did
Which will prove wiser in 2020?
Yeah, I'm not sure "speaking out" to low-paid Labour workers will work if he's simultaneously cutting their wages.
Quite... I caught part of the speech while passing through an airport lounge. I had a conscious feeling at certain points he was looking right down the lens of the camera, the conference didn't seem to exist at those moments.
Thomas Smith, who represents Gaywood North Bank ward in Norfolk, told his local paper: “I was walking out of the conference and had taken off my pass, like the police had told us to do.
“A random person suddenly jumped on my back and then I was punched in the face. It was rather ghastly.
Body bruised, rather sore, eye at least not too bad, cheek a bit swollen #CPC15 and at least it's blue! pic.twitter.com/BIdSIx0ujM — Thomas Smith (@SmudgeThomas) October 5, 2015
I - like I suspect the vast majority of the electorate - didn't actually see Osborne's speech so I can only judge it based on its content and the associated analysis in the media.
That is what will have the most influence on Osborne's prospects for leading the Tory party. How well he speaks will only matter to a tiny number of political anoraks.
Er No. Osborne will be judged first by the 300+ Conservative MPs and if he gets past them he has to be elected by the Conservative party membership.
And if they have any sense they will judge him on what he says not how he says it. Because that is what will interest the electorate and give those 300 MPs the best chance of keeping their seats.
So Ed M did not lose because he was a boring speaker who was out of touch?
G Osborne is therefore going to be PM ..:-)
(he may be a great strategist but he does not look like a PM, nor talk like a PM..)
Absolutely. Ed lost because of his policies and because the Tory party successfully used the fear of SNP influence over English affairs in a Labour/SNP coalition. I do believe that people overstate the impact of presentation over the medium to long term. There are plenty of well presented, articulate politicians who will never get anywhere because of their policies. Similarly no one is going to convince me that Brown was anything other than a mumbling buffoon yet he still rose to lead his party and the country.
This business rate change, what are the risks? My local Tory council has always been asking for this type of change so I've never seen it portrayed as being a bad thing, but there is always another side, if not always a convincing one, so I'm curious.
I think the issue was that, in the 80s, certain loony left councils were soaking businesses to the detriment of their local economies, safe in the knowledge that central government would have to pick up the bill (unemployment) or face the political consequences.
That's why it was centralised.
Presumably Osborne thinks the loony left has gone away...
On the contrary, Osborne KNOWS that certain councils will abuse the new powers. And many of the businesses will move.. To better run councils.
Result - Loony left councils are shown to impoverish their constituents..
This is all about softening up the well run councils to Conservative thinking and isolating the nutters..
Surely Osborne will also come with some sort of open data around this to minimise the impact of the business rate change. A simple comparison of business rates and their movement and joblessness and that it's movement should suffice.
Thomas Smith, who represents Gaywood North Bank ward in Norfolk, told his local paper: “I was walking out of the conference and had taken off my pass, like the police had told us to do.
“A random person suddenly jumped on my back and then I was punched in the face. It was rather ghastly.
Body bruised, rather sore, eye at least not too bad, cheek a bit swollen #CPC15 and at least it's blue! pic.twitter.com/BIdSIx0ujM — Thomas Smith (@SmudgeThomas) October 5, 2015
Thomas Smith, who represents Gaywood North Bank ward in Norfolk, told his local paper: “I was walking out of the conference and had taken off my pass, like the police had told us to do.
“A random person suddenly jumped on my back and then I was punched in the face. It was rather ghastly.
Body bruised, rather sore, eye at least not too bad, cheek a bit swollen #CPC15 and at least it's blue! pic.twitter.com/BIdSIx0ujM — Thomas Smith (@SmudgeThomas) October 5, 2015
And thousands of Corbynistas cheer the thuggish behaviour of their fellow travellers.
This business rate change, what are the risks? My local Tory council has always been asking for this type of change so I've never seen it portrayed as being a bad thing, but there is always another side, if not always a convincing one, so I'm curious.
I think the issue was that, in the 80s, certain loony left councils were soaking businesses to the detriment of their local economies, safe in the knowledge that central government would have to pick up the bill (unemployment) or face the political consequences.
That's why it was centralised.
Presumably Osborne thinks the loony left has gone away...
On the contrary, Osborne KNOWS that certain councils will abuse the new powers. And many of the businesses will move.. To better run councils.
Result - Loony left councils are shown to impoverish their constituents..
This is all about softening up the well run councils to Conservative thinking and isolating the nutters..
Surely Osborne will also come with some sort of open data around this to minimise the impact of the business rate change. A simple comparison of business rates and their movement and joblessness and that it's movement should suffice.
PoliticsHome @politicshome Sajid Javid on #wato: Business rates plan only applies to elected mayors - http://polho.me/1M6G1ZI (£) Hmmm devil in the detail.
Oratory can be overrated. Kinnock was a great orator but a fat lot of good it did him.
Honestly, can anyone remember a single word or memorable phrase any politician has said in one of these speeches?
Osborne may not be a good speech maker but by comparison with people like his rivals within the party he is streets ahead. Boris is a fantastic speaker but that's all he is these days. Osborne is doing stuff. Boris is just commenting on it.
People don't remember specifics but they remember whether on gut feel they liked or trusted someone, and so are more persuadable to the commentary as a result.
This business rate change, what are the risks? My local Tory council has always been asking for this type of change so I've never seen it portrayed as being a bad thing, but there is always another side, if not always a convincing one, so I'm curious.
I think the issue was that, in the 80s, certain loony left councils were soaking businesses to the detriment of their local economies, safe in the knowledge that central government would have to pick up the bill (unemployment) or face the political consequences.
That's why it was centralised.
Presumably Osborne thinks the loony left has gone away...
On the contrary, Osborne KNOWS that certain councils will abuse the new powers. And many of the businesses will move.. To better run councils.
Result - Loony left councils are shown to impoverish their constituents..
This is all about softening up the well run councils to Conservative thinking and isolating the nutters..
Surely Osborne will also come with some sort of open data around this to minimise the impact of the business rate change. A simple comparison of business rates and their movement and joblessness and that it's movement should suffice.
PoliticsHome @politicshome Sajid Javid on #wato: Business rates plan only applies to elected mayors - http://polho.me/1M6G1ZI (£) Hmmm devil in the detail.
Hmmm... Cue lots of places suddenly wanting Elected Mayors?
Tories are planning a humiliating slapdown to their former Liberal Democrat partners by refusing to stop Parliament for their party conference.
A senior Conservative told the Standard ministers were questioning if it was worth halting debates for a party that has “just eight MPs”.
This year Parliament broke up for conferences on September 17 in time for the Lib-Dem gathering. But one proposal could see next year’s break pushed back to cover Labour, Tory and SNP conferences instead.
Anyone who thinks only core Labour voters in safe Lab seats is going to be affected is in for a surprise.
And you are assuming that every single one of them will all lose the maximum when set against the tax changes and wage changes and that none of them will alter their work arrangements to adapt to the new reality. You also appear to assume that none of them already voted Labour and that they will all now switch. I think you've been taking something in your tea Alice which has clouded your judgement.
The IFS has confirmed that the vast majority of people on tax credits will see their incomes cut, even after taking into account the increase in the minimum wage.
Given how high the proportion of tax-credit recipients is in many of the Midlands and Southern marginals, it is inconceivable that the Tories would not have got the votes of a decent slice of them this year. No party has ever won without a good showing with the C2 "strivers" where tax credits are concentrated.
But not after taking into account income tax allowance changes and alteration of working practices. Nor will they all take the same hit. You keep ignoring the need to change practices and appear to assume it's fine for millions to have their wages subsidiZed by the rest. That is the real injustice. You just sound like a broken recors - one we've been hearing since 2010.
This business rate change, what are the risks? My local Tory council has always been asking for this type of change so I've never seen it portrayed as being a bad thing, but there is always another side, if not always a convincing one, so I'm curious.
I think the issue was that, in the 80s, certain loony left councils were soaking businesses to the detriment of their local economies, safe in the knowledge that central government would have to pick up the bill (unemployment) or face the political consequences.
That's why it was centralised.
Presumably Osborne thinks the loony left has gone away...
On the contrary, Osborne KNOWS that certain councils will abuse the new powers. And many of the businesses will move.. To better run councils.
Result - Loony left councils are shown to impoverish their constituents..
This is all about softening up the well run councils to Conservative thinking and isolating the nutters..
Surely Osborne will also come with some sort of open data around this to minimise the impact of the business rate change. A simple comparison of business rates and their movement and joblessness and that it's movement should suffice.
PoliticsHome @politicshome Sajid Javid on #wato: Business rates plan only applies to elected mayors - http://polho.me/1M6G1ZI (£) Hmmm devil in the detail.
Sounds like a good incentive to get more urban region elected mayors.
It's quite clear that the tax-credit-doom-mongers have forgotten substantial tax credit cuts were made in the last parliament, and they were targeted at households with incomes in the £40k-£60k bracket - prime Tory voters.
This business rate change, what are the risks? My local Tory council has always been asking for this type of change so I've never seen it portrayed as being a bad thing, but there is always another side, if not always a convincing one, so I'm curious.
I think the issue was that, in the 80s, certain loony left councils were soaking businesses to the detriment of their local economies, safe in the knowledge that central government would have to pick up the bill (unemployment) or face the political consequences.
That's why it was centralised.
Presumably Osborne thinks the loony left has gone away...
On the contrary, Osborne KNOWS that certain councils will abuse the new powers. And many of the businesses will move.. To better run councils.
Result - Loony left councils are shown to impoverish their constituents..
This is all about softening up the well run councils to Conservative thinking and isolating the nutters..
Surely Osborne will also come with some sort of open data around this to minimise the impact of the business rate change. A simple comparison of business rates and their movement and joblessness and that it's movement should suffice.
PoliticsHome @politicshome Sajid Javid on #wato: Business rates plan only applies to elected mayors - http://polho.me/1M6G1ZI (£) Hmmm devil in the detail.
So Shire counties are excluded then? What would be the point of that?
Oratory can be overrated. Kinnock was a great orator but a fat lot of good it did him.
Honestly, can anyone remember a single word or memorable phrase any politician has said in one of these speeches?
Osborne may not be a good speech maker but by comparison with people like his rivals within the party he is streets ahead. Boris is a fantastic speaker but that's all he is these days. Osborne is doing stuff. Boris is just commenting on it.
People don't remember specifics but they remember whether on gut feel they liked or trusted someone, and so are more persuadable to the commentary as a result.
Yes that may well be true. I think though that Boris has played the buffoon card too successfully. Much like Hague came to be known for his witty speeches. Humour has to be used carefully and not too often. I just don't feel he has the steel needed to be a PM. I do feel that about Osborne and he has rather grown on me over the years. But I accept that he isn't very cuddly. It's a bit unfair because someone, whose judgment I trust and who knows him, says that he is actually a very nice person and good company, rather nicer, in fact, than Cameron.
But I'm not particularly swayed by cuddliness etc anyway. Too much ersatz sentimentality in our public life to my mind. I'm looking for a PM not someone to cuddle up on the sofa with
The latest available figures show the NHS acute sector continuing to forecast a deficit in excess of £2bn for this financial year. Trusts’ year to date financial performance is even worse than planned, HSJ analysis has found.
Police snipers have been spotted guarding the Conservative party conference in Manchester this week - but officials insist that they are only using their guns as binoculars.
Locals were shocked to see the heavily armed officers standing with sniper rifles on top of a popular shopping centre during angry anti-austerity protests yesterday.
But Greater Manchester Police later claimed that the weapons were not intended to be fired, and were only present because their sights are better than binoculars at seeing long distances.
This business rate change, what are the risks? My local Tory council has always been asking for this type of change so I've never seen it portrayed as being a bad thing, but there is always another side, if not always a convincing one, so I'm curious.
I think the issue was that, in the 80s, certain loony left councils were soaking businesses to the detriment of their local economies, safe in the knowledge that central government would have to pick up the bill (unemployment) or face the political consequences.
That's why it was centralised.
Presumably Osborne thinks the loony left has gone away...
On the contrary, Osborne KNOWS that certain councils will abuse the new powers. And many of the businesses will move.. To better run councils.
Result - Loony left councils are shown to impoverish their constituents..
This is all about softening up the well run councils to Conservative thinking and isolating the nutters..
Surely Osborne will also come with some sort of open data around this to minimise the impact of the business rate change. A simple comparison of business rates and their movement and joblessness and that it's movement should suffice.
PoliticsHome @politicshome Sajid Javid on #wato: Business rates plan only applies to elected mayors - http://polho.me/1M6G1ZI (£) Hmmm devil in the detail.
So Shire counties are excluded then? What would be the point of that?
Why is this government so obsessed with mayors?
It's just the infrastructure rates bit that attaches to mayors.
Obviously the abolition of the universal rates/grant system applies everywhere (in England).
Anyone who thinks only core Labour voters in safe Lab seats is going to be affected is in for a surprise.
And you are assuming that every single one of them will all lose the maximum when set against the tax changes and wage changes and that none of them will alter their work arrangements to adapt to the new reality. You also appear to assume that none of them already voted Labour and that they will all now switch. I think you've been taking something in your tea Alice which has clouded your judgement.
The IFS has confirmed that the vast majority of people on tax credits will see their incomes cut, even after taking into account the increase in the minimum wage.
Given how high the proportion of tax-credit recipients is in many of the Midlands and Southern marginals, it is inconceivable that the Tories would not have got the votes of a decent slice of them this year. No party has ever won without a good showing with the C2 "strivers" where tax credits are concentrated.
And that shows everything that's wrong with the system: they were basically a Brownite ruse to buy C2 votes. Which failed.
The idea that no-one should ever lose out from any tax change is one of the nonsenses that delivered the structural deficit in the first place. C2 strivers will in any case not want to be C2's all their life. That's what the 'striving' bit is about.
And they voted Tory knowing that deficit reduction was the policy
You have a touching faith in the familiarity of voters with the detailed manifestos. I don't think Labour did a good job of exposing this, but equally I do think it will be an unpleasant surprise for many people who voted Tory.
FPT White Rabbit: At present, if rich area X attracts lots more business, a lot of the proceeds (up to 75%) get redistributed to poorer areas. In future, X will still hand over what they hand over now, but will keep 100% of any new business rates. Clearly this does give X a good incentive to be business-friendly, and perhaps indirectly to relax planning restrictions (e.g. Cambridge might be less zealous about inhibiting urban sprawl now they'll get 100% of the proceeds), which one may or may not think a good thing. Or Cambridge could elect a mayor who put up business rates, perhaps getting more revenue without pressuring the planning system, because so many companies desperately want to be there.
The downside is this: poor area Y unable to attract much new business (e.g. because it's a rural district with poor communications which the local council can't really do much about) has hitherto been kept in touch with growth by sharing in X's success. The policy will tend to widen the gap as X accelerates away. In theory, Y could tackle that by launching a big infrastructure project and raising rates to pay for it, but oddly this option is only available for places with elected mayors. Alternatively, Y could slash business rates to try to attract businesses, but that will only produce a benefit if the business rates are the main reason businesses don't operate there, which may well not be true (a reverse Laffer curve) - would the average firm move to South Shields even if business rates were lower there? So it's probably true that the policy will let failing location Y stagnate and even decline.
This business rate change, what are the risks? My local Tory council has always been asking for this type of change so I've never seen it portrayed as being a bad thing, but there is always another side, if not always a convincing one, so I'm curious.
I think the issue was that, in the 80s, certain loony left councils were soaking businesses to the detriment of their local economies, safe in the knowledge that central government would have to pick up the bill (unemployment) or face the political consequences.
That's why it was centralised.
Presumably Osborne thinks the loony left has gone away...
On the contrary, Osborne KNOWS that certain councils will abuse the new powers. And many of the businesses will move.. To better run councils.
Result - Loony left councils are shown to impoverish their constituents..
This is all about softening up the well run councils to Conservative thinking and isolating the nutters..
Surely Osborne will also come with some sort of open data around this to minimise the impact of the business rate change. A simple comparison of business rates and their movement and joblessness and that it's movement should suffice.
PoliticsHome @politicshome Sajid Javid on #wato: Business rates plan only applies to elected mayors - http://polho.me/1M6G1ZI (£) Hmmm devil in the detail.
It's quite clear that the tax-credit-doom-mongers have forgotten substantial tax credit cuts were made in the last parliament, and they were targeted at households with incomes in the £40k-£60k bracket - prime Tory voters.
And that's before we consider the planned transitional protections.
I'm not saying Tax Credit cut is an end-of-days issue. I'm saying it'll be a right royal pain that will dog them all through this parliament for very little material gain.
Alternatively, Y could slash business rates to try to attract businesses, but that will only produce a benefit if the business rates are the main reason businesses don't operate there, which may well not be true (a reverse Laffer curve) - would the average firm move to South Shields even if business rates were lower there? So it's probably true that the policy will let failing location Y stagnate and even decline.
That's not necessarily true. Businesses might not want to move to a rural area (say the Westcountry) primarily because of the extra transport costs, which add an extra £1million a year to business. But if the reduced business rates save them an extra £2 million a year, they'd move.
Plus you're doing the normal left-wing thing of only thinking in terms of shares of the pie rather than growing the pie. If Greater Manchester can put up business rates, improve infrastructure capacity and cause more GDP, then that will mean greater corporation tax and VAT for the exchequer, which can be spent on Cheshire and Cumbria. It's good for everyone.
And they voted Tory knowing that deficit reduction was the policy
You have a touching faith in the familiarity of voters with the detailed manifestos. I don't think Labour did a good job of exposing this, but equally I do think it will be an unpleasant surprise for many people who voted Tory.
FPT White Rabbit: At present, if rich area X attracts lots more business, a lot of the proceeds (up to 75%) get redistributed to poorer areas. In future, X will still hand over what they hand over now, but will keep 100% of any new business rates. Clearly this does give X a good incentive to be business-friendly, and perhaps indirectly to relax planning restrictions (e.g. Cambridge might be less zealous about inhibiting urban sprawl now they'll get 100% of the proceeds), which one may or may not think a good thing. Or Cambridge could elect a mayor who put up business rates, perhaps getting more revenue without pressuring the planning system, because so many companies desperately want to be there.
The downside is this: poor area Y unable to attract much new business (e.g. because it's a rural district with poor communications which the local council can't really do much about) has hitherto been kept in touch with growth by sharing in X's success. The policy will tend to widen the gap as X accelerates away. In theory, Y could tackle that by launching a big infrastructure project and raising rates to pay for it, but oddly this option is only available for places with elected mayors. Alternatively, Y could slash business rates to try to attract businesses, but that will only produce a benefit if the business rates are the main reason businesses don't operate there, which may well not be true (a reverse Laffer curve) - would the average firm move to South Shields even if business rates were lower there? So it's probably true that the policy will let failing location Y stagnate and even decline.
I think your first point is unreasonable - yes, people do not thoroughly examine the manifestos of any party, but the Tory policy on the deficit and Labour attacking it does not require detailed knowledge, it is something both sides banged on about endlessly. If people did not know it by the GE, there is nothing more that could be done to inform them. That 'people didn't realise what they were doing' argument is also very easy to start getting insulting, or all I accept that merely voting for a party is not an endorsement of its entire policy platform (and yet if someone is a public demonstrator, even less is required to suggest endorsement - a few hundred people marching is a sign that the entire country supports them)
@MarkKleinmanSky: Revealed: Jeremy Corbyn snubs invitation from Institute of Directors to address its annual conference tomorrow. http://t.co/WYgKt6d0Ln
The latest available figures show the NHS acute sector continuing to forecast a deficit in excess of £2bn for this financial year. Trusts’ year to date financial performance is even worse than planned, HSJ analysis has found.
What's 2 billion converted into number of weeks/ days and hours to save the NHS which I understand is the normal accepted Labour Party measure for distracting attention from more important things?
@MarkKleinmanSky: Revealed: Jeremy Corbyn snubs invitation from Institute of Directors to address its annual conference tomorrow. http://t.co/WYgKt6d0Ln
It's quite clear that the tax-credit-doom-mongers have forgotten substantial tax credit cuts were made in the last parliament, and they were targeted at households with incomes in the £40k-£60k bracket - prime Tory voters.
And that's before we consider the planned transitional protections.
I'm not saying Tax Credit cut is an end-of-days issue. I'm saying it'll be a right royal pain that will dog them all through this parliament for very little material gain.
Child benefit cuts were going to cost them the 2015 election.
People losing benefits doesn't register in the same way tax rises do - and the pool of people who never had them or could no longer claim them anyway grows every day.
The latest available figures show the NHS acute sector continuing to forecast a deficit in excess of £2bn for this financial year. Trusts’ year to date financial performance is even worse than planned, HSJ analysis has found.
What's 2 billion converted into number of weeks/ days and hours to save the NHS which I understand is the normal accepted Labour Party measure for distracting attention from more important things?
Remarkable comments by Hunt - we need to cut incomes so we learn to work harder (so higher tax rates make wealthy people redouble their efforts, right? Take that, Laffer!), don't worry about that Tory MP sympathising with doctors, he's just an angry ex-Minister, and hospitals should be more like Japanese car factories...
Tories are planning a humiliating slapdown to their former Liberal Democrat partners by refusing to stop Parliament for their party conference.
A senior Conservative told the Standard ministers were questioning if it was worth halting debates for a party that has “just eight MPs”.
This year Parliament broke up for conferences on September 17 in time for the Lib-Dem gathering. But one proposal could see next year’s break pushed back to cover Labour, Tory and SNP conferences instead.
Yes the SNP may only be a regional party, but they do have 55 seats in Parliament and a unique perspective.
I don't see why the LibDems should get materially better treatment than, say, the Greens.
I'd probably, somewhat arbitrarily, use 5% of seats (ie 30 or 33 depending on house size) as a cut off point justifying Parliament not sitting during your conference
The latest available figures show the NHS acute sector continuing to forecast a deficit in excess of £2bn for this financial year. Trusts’ year to date financial performance is even worse than planned, HSJ analysis has found.
What's 2 billion converted into number of weeks/ days and hours to save the NHS which I understand is the normal accepted Labour Party measure for distracting attention from more important things?
@MarkKleinmanSky: Revealed: Jeremy Corbyn snubs invitation from Institute of Directors to address its annual conference tomorrow. http://t.co/WYgKt6d0Ln
So Corbyn's happy for dialogue with terrorists, but not employers and business owners.
So much for his line to Channel 4 that 'you have to talk to people with whom you may profoundly disagree.'
It's quite clear that the tax-credit-doom-mongers have forgotten substantial tax credit cuts were made in the last parliament, and they were targeted at households with incomes in the £40k-£60k bracket - prime Tory voters.
And that's before we consider the planned transitional protections.
I'm not saying Tax Credit cut is an end-of-days issue. I'm saying it'll be a right royal pain that will dog them all through this parliament for very little material gain.
Child benefit cuts were going to cost them the 2015 election.
People losing benefits doesn't register in the same way tax rises do - and the pool of people who never had them or could no longer claim them anyway grows every day.
The difference is Joe Public doesn't see tax credits as "benefits".
Again, I think the Tories have fundamentally misunderstood why they've got away with benefit cuts thus far. It's not because people have bought into the Tories' right-wing ideological rubbish that anyone who is poor deserves to be, and that people who are rich by their nature are more talented than the rest. It's because people (rightly or wrongly) take a moral view that people who are unemployed aren't trying hard enough.
But when it comes to people who do actually put the effort in and go out to work, but just aren't paid well, the public will take a different view IMO because they are self-evidently not lazy "layabouts" if they have a job.
Thomas Smith, who represents Gaywood North Bank ward in Norfolk, told his local paper: “I was walking out of the conference and had taken off my pass, like the police had told us to do.
“A random person suddenly jumped on my back and then I was punched in the face. It was rather ghastly.
Body bruised, rather sore, eye at least not too bad, cheek a bit swollen #CPC15 and at least it's blue! pic.twitter.com/BIdSIx0ujM — Thomas Smith (@SmudgeThomas) October 5, 2015
And thousands of Corbynistas cheer the thuggish behaviour of their fellow travellers. The loony left are able to justify attacking Tories as the Tories are supposedly attacking the poor and working class of this country.
The point about tax credits is surely that many people will no longer have to go cap in hand to the government to get their own money back, a demeaning and complicated task.
Remarkable comments by Hunt - we need to cut incomes so we learn to work harder (so higher tax rates make wealthy people redouble their efforts, right? Take that, Laffer!), don't worry about that Tory MP sympathising with doctors, he's just an angry ex-Minister, and hospitals should be more like Japanese car factories...
Hang on, Nick, are you really claiming that hospitals shouldn't try to be more efficient, in the way that car factories do? As an example, there was a radio interview with a surgeon which I heard a few months ago (sorry, I don't have a link). He had looked at a German hospital which had achieved a big increase in the throughput of surgical operations. It turned out that they had achieved this by a fairly simple change in procedures - instead of the surgical team doing the clean-up.disinfecting between each operation, they had a separate cleaning team who were completely focussed on fast and effective cleaning, and were all ready to go in and do the cleaning as soon as the previous operation was over.
It is that kind of thing which the NHS needs to do much more than it currently does. If it could achieve one tenth of the productivity gains which car factories have managed the effect would be dramatic.
The latest available figures show the NHS acute sector continuing to forecast a deficit in excess of £2bn for this financial year. Trusts’ year to date financial performance is even worse than planned, HSJ analysis has found.
What's 2 billion converted into number of weeks/ days and hours to save the NHS which I understand is the normal accepted Labour Party measure for distracting attention from more important things?
We have to proceed with these tax credit changes because they are a very important cultural signal. We want this to be one of the most successful countries in the world in 20, 30, 40 years’ time. There’s a pretty difficult question that we have to answer which is essentially: are we going to be a country that is prepared to work hard in the way that Asian economies are prepared to work hard, in the way that Americans are prepared to work hard? And that is about creating culture where work is at the heart of our success.
Remarkable comments by Hunt - we need to cut incomes so we learn to work harder (so higher tax rates make wealthy people redouble their efforts, right? Take that, Laffer!), don't worry about that Tory MP sympathising with doctors, he's just an angry ex-Minister, and hospitals should be more like Japanese car factories...
Again, I think the Tories have fundamentally misunderstood why they've got away with benefit cuts thus far. It's not because people have bought into the Tories' right-wing ideological rubbish that anyone who is poor deserves to be, and that people who are rich by their nature are more talented than the rest. It's because people (rightly or wrongly) take a moral view that people who are unemployed aren't trying hard enough.
The "Tories right-wing ideological rubbish that anyone who is poor deserves to be" is something that does not exist. I suggest you are spending too much time reading left-wing accounts of what Conservatives believe, rather than reading Conservative accounts of what we actually believe.
Didn't see the speech so cannot comment on presentation but that probably puts me in the vast majority anyway.
What I think comes across loud and clear from the content of the speech is that this is no time for hubris or even the hand of history on the shoulder, it is time for a serious party to focus on the real and substantial problems that this country still has. It is from a man who has presented himself as brimming with ideas as to how to address those problems, who is willing to acknowledge, as he did in the Northern Powerhouse section, that not all of these ideas will work but who wants to try.
Osborne's big mistake in the past has been to come across as an arrogant twat. As I have pointed out before he rarely makes the same mistake twice (although he pushed that to the limit in this area). Today we saw the new, serious, focussed Osborne, no gimmicks, just serious ideas from a serious guy in control of the issues across government wanting a serious job, PM of our great country.
The contrast between what he presented today and what we saw last week is almost as painful as the memories of Man U defenders of yesterday (there Mike, not gone away, just hurting).
Remarkable comments by Hunt - we need to cut incomes so we learn to work harder (so higher tax rates make wealthy people redouble their efforts, right? Take that, Laffer!), don't worry about that Tory MP sympathising with doctors, he's just an angry ex-Minister, and hospitals should be more like Japanese car factories...
Hang on, Nick, are you really claiming that hospitals shouldn't try to be more efficient, in the way that car factories do? As an example, there was a radio interview with a surgeon which I heard a few months ago (sorry, I don't have a link). He had looked at a German hospital which had achieved a big increase in the throughput of surgical operations. It turned out that they had achieved this by a fairly simple change in procedures - instead of the surgical team doing the clean-up.disinfecting between each operation, they had a separate cleaning team who were completely focussed on fast and effective cleaning, and were all ready to go in and do the cleaning as soon as the previous operation was over.
It is that kind of thing which the NHS needs to do much more than it currently does. If it could achieve one tenth of the productivity gains which car factories have managed the effect would be dramatic.
Acute hospitals have achieved 40% efficiencies in last few years but now instead of none being in deficit in 2010 its now nearly 90% forecasting deficit
We have to proceed with these tax credit changes because they are a very important cultural signal. We want this to be one of the most successful countries in the world in 20, 30, 40 years’ time. There’s a pretty difficult question that we have to answer which is essentially: are we going to be a country that is prepared to work hard in the way that Asian economies are prepared to work hard, in the way that Americans are prepared to work hard? And that is about creating culture where work is at the heart of our success.
Remarkable comments by Hunt - we need to cut incomes so we learn to work harder (so higher tax rates make wealthy people redouble their efforts, right? Take that, Laffer!), don't worry about that Tory MP sympathising with doctors, he's just an angry ex-Minister, and hospitals should be more like Japanese car factories...
Mr. Palmer, you're aware that taxes and benefits/welfare are different things, right?
The government's decreased taxes for those on low incomes, high incomes and businesses.
But they are about to cut the wages of most low-income people.
No, they're about to cut the benefits of low-income people. Their wages will be going up.
I'm not sure your average low-income person who will have less money in their pocket will appreciate the distinction.
This seems the real danger as I see it. With this particular change, there may well be all sorts of mitigations, and the system may not be working, and I even think in the abstract people would support it, but I think the risk is there a lot of people will see it in simple terms as you have characterised it, and it will hit the Tories politically as a result.
Mr. Palmer, you're aware that taxes and benefits/welfare are different things, right?
The government's decreased taxes for those on low incomes, high incomes and businesses.
But they are about to cut the wages of most low-income people.
No, they're about to cut the benefits of low-income people. Their wages will be going up.
I'm not sure your average low-income person who will have less money in their pocket will appreciate the distinction.
This seems the real danger as I see it. With this particular change, there may well be all sorts of mitigations, and the system may not be working, and I even think in the abstract people would support it, but I think the risk is there a lot of people will see it in simple terms as you have characterised it, and it will hit the Tories politically as a result.
The point about tax credits is surely that many people will no longer have to go cap in hand to the government to get their own money back, a demeaning and complicated task.
and dealing with HMRC which is usually a nightmare. But this could be achieved with a gradual decline rather than a sudden cut, if the wages are really going up to match.
Mr. Palmer, you're aware that taxes and benefits/welfare are different things, right?
The government's decreased taxes for those on low incomes, high incomes and businesses.
But they are about to cut the wages of most low-income people.
No, they're about to cut the benefits of low-income people. Their wages will be going up.
I'm not sure your average low-income person who will have less money in their pocket will appreciate the distinction.
That is a fair point. Getting from a low wage economy where the working poor need benefits to survive to a high wage economy where you can look after yourself with the money you earn and welfare is for those who really need it and not used to subsidise stingy employers is difficult. I don't know whether the government has found the right route. But the destination is the right one.
Labour give the impression that we shouldn't even try and that the only mark of a successful economy is how much is spent on welfare, no matter how pointless or wasteful it may be. That's not a winning argument.
50 years ago a family of 4 could survive happily on one person's income. Now people have to work every hour there is and still can't afford the basics. Getting to a situation where a person can live on their income and not be reliant on handouts seems to me to be worthwhile. Why is Labour putting themselves on the wrong side of this argument?
Mr. Palmer, you're aware that taxes and benefits/welfare are different things, right?
The government's decreased taxes for those on low incomes, high incomes and businesses.
But they are about to cut the wages of most low-income people.
No, they're about to cut the benefits of low-income people. Their wages will be going up.
I'm not sure your average low-income person who will have less money in their pocket will appreciate the distinction.
The vast majority of the cuts are from a freeze in the credits. So nobody who looks at their budgeting in cash terms (the vast majority of us) will see a loss there.
Interesting take on Ozzie's speech www.economist.com/blogs/bagehot/2015/10/george-osborne
Where places are failing it is usually because they are too small, too out of the way or too low-skilled. In government Labour's answer was to let the boomtowns boom, cream off the benefit in taxes and pass it down to places without an invite to the party. Mr Osborne's answer is different: work with the grain of economic change, not against it. Pump up the places doing well and help people in the places doing less well to relocate there and throw themselves into the forwards churn of globalisation, rather than merely compensating them for it
@PCollinsTimes: Just been called "scum" as I went into Radisson. Last time that happened it was still the Free Trade Hall and I was going to see The Clash.
Anyone who thinks only core Labour voters in safe Lab seats is going to be affected is in for a surprise.
And you are assuming that every single one of them will all lose the maximum when set against the tax changes and wage changes and that none of them will alter their work arrangements to adapt to the new reality. You also appear to assume that none of them already voted Labour and that they will all now switch. I think you've been taking something in your tea Alice which has clouded your judgement.
The IFS has confirmed that the vast majority of people on tax credits will see their incomes cut, even after taking into account the increase in the minimum wage.
Given how high the proportion of tax-credit recipients is in many of the Midlands and Southern marginals, it is inconceivable that the Tories would not have got the votes of a decent slice of them this year. No party has ever won without a good showing with the C2 "strivers" where tax credits are concentrated.
And that shows everything that's wrong with the system: they were basically a Brownite ruse to buy C2 votes. Which failed.
The idea that no-one should ever lose out from any tax change is one of the nonsenses that delivered the structural deficit in the first place. C2 strivers will in any case not want to be C2's all their life. That's what the 'striving' bit is about.
So why not spell out the policy before the election? My guess is because the Tories realised that a slogan of Vote For Us, We Plan to Reduce Your Income was not going to be a winner.
@PCollinsTimes: Just been called "scum" as I went into Radisson. Last time that happened it was still the Free Trade Hall and I was going to see The Clash.
Mr. Palmer, you're aware that taxes and benefits/welfare are different things, right?
The government's decreased taxes for those on low incomes, high incomes and businesses.
But they are about to cut the wages of most low-income people.
No, they're about to cut the benefits of low-income people. Their wages will be going up.
I'm not sure your average low-income person who will have less money in their pocket will appreciate the distinction.
That is a fair point. Getting from a low wage economy where the working poor need benefits to survive to a high wage economy where you can look after yourself with the money you earn and welfare is for those who really need it and not used to subsidise stingy employers is difficult. I don't know whether the government has found the right route. But the destination is the right one.
Labour give the impression that we shouldn't even try and that the only mark of a successful economy is how much is spent on welfare, no matter how pointless or wasteful it may be. That's not a winning argument.
50 years ago a family of 4 could survive happily on one person's income. Now people have to work every hour there is and still can't afford the basics. Getting to a situation where a person can live on their income and not be reliant on handouts seems to me to be worthwhile. Why is Labour putting themselves on the wrong side of this argument?
To be fair to EdM he was saying all this a few years back, but was calling it pre-distribution.
Mr. Palmer, you're aware that taxes and benefits/welfare are different things, right?
The government's decreased taxes for those on low incomes, high incomes and businesses.
But they are about to cut the wages of most low-income people.
No, they're about to cut the benefits of low-income people. Their wages will be going up.
I'm not sure your average low-income person who will have less money in their pocket will appreciate the distinction.
This seems the real danger as I see it. With this particular change, there may well be all sorts of mitigations, and the system may not be working, and I even think in the abstract people would support it, but I think the risk is there a lot of people will see it in simple terms as you have characterised it, and it will hit the Tories politically as a result.
Nope - Corbyn Labour is not credible so the Tories have a free pass.
This tax credit cut is nasty and will start to hit just before the Assembly elections. I would be shocked if Wales Labour does not make hay next April/May. Ps my last efforts to get on the County Council were scuppered by GB's 10% tax rate cut. I suspect the Tories will face something similar next year.
Anyone who thinks only core Labour voters in safe Lab seats is going to be affected is in for a surprise.
Your analysis "this far outstrips the Tory majority" only makes sense if any of those on tax credits voted Conservative or did not vote. Otherwise if they all voted Labour at the last GE, no impact.
I suggest you recalibrate your thinking :-)
Careful -- it may be you who needs to reverse ferret if Plato et al are right that HMG has indeed cottoned onto this and will cushion the blow.
Sorry for the delay in replying: garden and bees called.. (rain stopped).
I suspect you may be correct which is why Cameron appears so relaxed on the issue: a Plan B is already in place.
50 years ago a family of 4 could survive happily on one person's income.
Well yes and no. 50 years ago, many families did not have cars, televisions, inside toilets or fridges, let alone the high tech mobile handsets that are now a personal necessity.
We have to proceed with these tax credit changes because they are a very important cultural signal. We want this to be one of the most successful countries in the world in 20, 30, 40 years’ time. There’s a pretty difficult question that we have to answer which is essentially: are we going to be a country that is prepared to work hard in the way that Asian economies are prepared to work hard, in the way that Americans are prepared to work hard? And that is about creating culture where work is at the heart of our success.
Remarkable comments by Hunt - we need to cut incomes so we learn to work harder (so higher tax rates make wealthy people redouble their efforts, right? Take that, Laffer!), don't worry about that Tory MP sympathising with doctors, he's just an angry ex-Minister, and hospitals should be more like Japanese car factories...
So how does making hard working poor people poorer help in that task?
It doesn't. But removing the subsidy from low skill low wage labour, while putting up the minimum wage, will encourage companies to invest in productivity improvements, which will help wages increase in the longer term. It also reduces the deficit, meaning less threat of future tax rises for companies, encouraging more to invest here.
We have to proceed with these tax credit changes because they are a very important cultural signal. We want this to be one of the most successful countries in the world in 20, 30, 40 years’ time. There’s a pretty difficult question that we have to answer which is essentially: are we going to be a country that is prepared to work hard in the way that Asian economies are prepared to work hard, in the way that Americans are prepared to work hard? And that is about creating culture where work is at the heart of our success.
Remarkable comments by Hunt - we need to cut incomes so we learn to work harder (so higher tax rates make wealthy people redouble their efforts, right? Take that, Laffer!), don't worry about that Tory MP sympathising with doctors, he's just an angry ex-Minister, and hospitals should be more like Japanese car factories...
So how does making hard working poor people poorer help in that task?
You are either of the opinion that we have to stop taking then giving back tax, end subsidies to the supermarkets, and reduce distortions in the economy.
Or not.
If you believe we should continue with tax credits, which represent a huge market distortion and are a charge on the taxpayer instead of Waitrose, then by all means continue supporting them.
It is analagous to EU immigrants. They benefit our economy in aggregate via increased profits and therefore investment, but indigenous low wage earners suffer. Reform of tax credits certainly will have casualties (and perhaps could be tapered) but is fundamentally beneficial for the UK economy.
Mr. Palmer, you're aware that taxes and benefits/welfare are different things, right?
The government's decreased taxes for those on low incomes, high incomes and businesses.
But they are about to cut the wages of most low-income people.
I did the maths on the previous thread. Those on NMW and working 35 hours a week got an extra £7 a week from 1st October. Those who earn enough to pay tax get an extra £10 a month this financial year compared to last year because of the £600 increase in their personal allowance. Those not on the NMW are currently getting about 2-3% increase a year in their wages in real terms.
For those on NMW and 35 hours the increase from the government is worth about £40 a month. How many will lose more than that from their WTC? I would suggest again it is really only those who were on part time work and full time wages, courtesy of the State (ie us).
We have to proceed with these tax credit changes because they are a very important cultural signal. We want this to be one of the most successful countries in the world in 20, 30, 40 years’ time. There’s a pretty difficult question that we have to answer which is essentially: are we going to be a country that is prepared to work hard in the way that Asian economies are prepared to work hard, in the way that Americans are prepared to work hard? And that is about creating culture where work is at the heart of our success.
Remarkable comments by Hunt - we need to cut incomes so we learn to work harder (so higher tax rates make wealthy people redouble their efforts, right? Take that, Laffer!), don't worry about that Tory MP sympathising with doctors, he's just an angry ex-Minister, and hospitals should be more like Japanese car factories...
So how does making hard working poor people poorer help in that task?
It doesn't. But removing the subsidy from low skill low wage labour, while putting up the minimum wage, will encourage companies to invest in productivity improvements, which will help wages increase in the longer term. It also reduces the deficit, meaning less threat of future tax rises for companies, encouraging more to invest here.
That is not what has happened in the US or in large parts of Asia. Chinese productivity is even worse than ours.
50 years ago a family of 4 could survive happily on one person's income.
Well yes and no. 50 years ago, many families did not have cars, televisions, inside toilets or fridges, let alone the high tech mobile handsets that are now a personal necessity.
But they survived.
OK - even 30 years ago. But - old-fashioned as this may make me - I don't think that not being able to afford the latest high tech mobile or other gadget is a mark of poverty, frankly.
People need to be able to have adequate housing and feed themselves and clothe themselves etc. The inadequacy of housing for those on low wages is far more important than someone not being able to upgrade their mobile.
Comments
I suggest you recalibrate your thinking :-)
The upside of course is we could end up we could end up with a Zoo and a colloseium in every council area.
:-)
G Osborne is therefore going to be PM ..:-)
(he may be a great strategist but he does not look like a PM, nor talk like a PM..)
Given how high the proportion of tax-credit recipients is in many of the Midlands and Southern marginals, it is inconceivable that the Tories would not have got the votes of a decent slice of them this year. No party has ever won without a good showing with the C2 "strivers" where tax credits are concentrated.
Result - Loony left councils are shown to impoverish their constituents..
This is all about softening up the well run councils to Conservative thinking and isolating the nutters..
But was it a kinder attack though?
@politicshome
Sajid Javid on #wato: Business rates plan only applies to elected mayors - http://polho.me/1M6G1ZI (£)
Hmmm devil in the detail.
This is what it's like walking into #CPC15. They make their case so well #TakeBackMCR http://t.co/zANuV9XSxS
Demosthenes? The chap renowned for electrifying speeches and losing to the Macedonians?
One suspects the blues prefer a victor to an orator.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/tory-bid-to-axe-commons-break-for-libdem-conference-a3083141.html
Tax credits didnt exist before NuLab, the places you mention weren't ghettos.
government cannot and should not guarantee no hardship for all. We can't afford the current largesse of the welfare system.
Mind you I would vote for ditching free bus passes and TV licences first...
The Conservatives should focus on their more dangerous opponents.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_in_the_Canadian_federal_election,_2015#Campaign_period
Bedroom tax, tax credit cuts, workfare....all end-of-days issues, apparently. Except they weren't.
And that's before we consider the planned transitional protections.
Why is this government so obsessed with mayors?
But I'm not particularly swayed by cuddliness etc anyway. Too much ersatz sentimentality in our public life to my mind. I'm looking for a PM not someone to cuddle up on the sofa with
Obviously the abolition of the universal rates/grant system applies everywhere (in England).
The idea that no-one should ever lose out from any tax change is one of the nonsenses that delivered the structural deficit in the first place. C2 strivers will in any case not want to be C2's all their life. That's what the 'striving' bit is about.
FPT White Rabbit:
At present, if rich area X attracts lots more business, a lot of the proceeds (up to 75%) get redistributed to poorer areas. In future, X will still hand over what they hand over now, but will keep 100% of any new business rates. Clearly this does give X a good incentive to be business-friendly, and perhaps indirectly to relax planning restrictions (e.g. Cambridge might be less zealous about inhibiting urban sprawl now they'll get 100% of the proceeds), which one may or may not think a good thing. Or Cambridge could elect a mayor who put up business rates, perhaps getting more revenue without pressuring the planning system, because so many companies desperately want to be there.
The downside is this: poor area Y unable to attract much new business (e.g. because it's a rural district with poor communications which the local council can't really do much about) has hitherto been kept in touch with growth by sharing in X's success. The policy will tend to widen the gap as X accelerates away. In theory, Y could tackle that by launching a big infrastructure project and raising rates to pay for it, but oddly this option is only available for places with elected mayors. Alternatively, Y could slash business rates to try to attract businesses, but that will only produce a benefit if the business rates are the main reason businesses don't operate there, which may well not be true (a reverse Laffer curve) - would the average firm move to South Shields even if business rates were lower there? So it's probably true that the policy will let failing location Y stagnate and even decline.
Plus you're doing the normal left-wing thing of only thinking in terms of shares of the pie rather than growing the pie. If Greater Manchester can put up business rates, improve infrastructure capacity and cause more GDP, then that will mean greater corporation tax and VAT for the exchequer, which can be spent on Cheshire and Cumbria. It's good for everyone.
People losing benefits doesn't register in the same way tax rises do - and the pool of people who never had them or could no longer claim them anyway grows every day.
http://www.hsj.co.uk/newsletter/comment/panic-and-denial-wont-solve-funding-issues/5090395.article?WT.tsrc=email&WT.mc_id=Newsletter170#.VhKEWPlVikp
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2015/oct/05/george-osborne-announces-cut-price-lloyds-bank-share-sale-politics-live
I have some sympathy for that.
Yes the SNP may only be a regional party, but they do have 55 seats in Parliament and a unique perspective.
I don't see why the LibDems should get materially better treatment than, say, the Greens.
I'd probably, somewhat arbitrarily, use 5% of seats (ie 30 or 33 depending on house size) as a cut off point justifying Parliament not sitting during your conference
The government's decreased taxes for those on low incomes, high incomes and businesses.
So much for his line to Channel 4 that 'you have to talk to people with whom you may profoundly disagree.'
Again, I think the Tories have fundamentally misunderstood why they've got away with benefit cuts thus far. It's not because people have bought into the Tories' right-wing ideological rubbish that anyone who is poor deserves to be, and that people who are rich by their nature are more talented than the rest. It's because people (rightly or wrongly) take a moral view that people who are unemployed aren't trying hard enough.
But when it comes to people who do actually put the effort in and go out to work, but just aren't paid well, the public will take a different view IMO because they are self-evidently not lazy "layabouts" if they have a job.
The loony left are able to justify attacking Tories as the Tories are supposedly attacking the poor and working class of this country.
It is that kind of thing which the NHS needs to do much more than it currently does. If it could achieve one tenth of the productivity gains which car factories have managed the effect would be dramatic.
You do the Math.
Private sector as per Circle said when it quit the sector was unsustainable.
What I think comes across loud and clear from the content of the speech is that this is no time for hubris or even the hand of history on the shoulder, it is time for a serious party to focus on the real and substantial problems that this country still has. It is from a man who has presented himself as brimming with ideas as to how to address those problems, who is willing to acknowledge, as he did in the Northern Powerhouse section, that not all of these ideas will work but who wants to try.
Osborne's big mistake in the past has been to come across as an arrogant twat. As I have pointed out before he rarely makes the same mistake twice (although he pushed that to the limit in this area). Today we saw the new, serious, focussed Osborne, no gimmicks, just serious ideas from a serious guy in control of the issues across government wanting a serious job, PM of our great country.
The contrast between what he presented today and what we saw last week is almost as painful as the memories of Man U defenders of yesterday (there Mike, not gone away, just hurting).
So how does making hard working poor people poorer help in that task?
Labour give the impression that we shouldn't even try and that the only mark of a successful economy is how much is spent on welfare, no matter how pointless or wasteful it may be. That's not a winning argument.
50 years ago a family of 4 could survive happily on one person's income. Now people have to work every hour there is and still can't afford the basics. Getting to a situation where a person can live on their income and not be reliant on handouts seems to me to be worthwhile. Why is Labour putting themselves on the wrong side of this argument?
Who would have thunk it.
6 year pay freeze starting to bite.
Anyone remember £12Bn in welfare savings?
Ps my last efforts to get on the County Council were scuppered by GB's 10% tax rate cut. I suspect the Tories will face something similar next year.
I suspect you may be correct which is why Cameron appears so relaxed on the issue: a Plan B is already in place.
Well yes and no. 50 years ago, many families did not have cars, televisions, inside toilets or fridges, let alone the high tech mobile handsets that are now a personal necessity.
But they survived.
It doesn't. But removing the subsidy from low skill low wage labour, while putting up the minimum wage, will encourage companies to invest in productivity improvements, which will help wages increase in the longer term. It also reduces the deficit, meaning less threat of future tax rises for companies, encouraging more to invest here.
You are either of the opinion that we have to stop taking then giving back tax, end subsidies to the supermarkets, and reduce distortions in the economy.
Or not.
If you believe we should continue with tax credits, which represent a huge market distortion and are a charge on the taxpayer instead of Waitrose, then by all means continue supporting them.
It is analagous to EU immigrants. They benefit our economy in aggregate via increased profits and therefore investment, but indigenous low wage earners suffer. Reform of tax credits certainly will have casualties (and perhaps could be tapered) but is fundamentally beneficial for the UK economy.
For those on NMW and 35 hours the increase from the government is worth about £40 a month. How many will lose more than that from their WTC? I would suggest again it is really only those who were on part time work and full time wages, courtesy of the State (ie us).
That is not what has happened in the US or in large parts of Asia. Chinese productivity is even worse than ours.
People need to be able to have adequate housing and feed themselves and clothe themselves etc. The inadequacy of housing for those on low wages is far more important than someone not being able to upgrade their mobile.