HOW are we to use our two votes, one for a constituency MSP and one for a list candidate, at the Holyrood election in May?
As an SNP member, I have been told by Nicola Sturgeon to use both for our party but I don’t intend to obey.
As it seems certain the SNP will get back into power on constituency seats alone, I am not going to waste that second vote.
I am not a nationalist, I am a socialist. I am also seeking a second referendum when the time is right.
So, while going SNP with my constituency vote, I am looking for a socialist-independence home for my second one. I have found it in new Left organisation RISE – unambiguously socialist and committed to seeking a mandate for a second referendum.
If people support the SNP they should vote for them- trying to game the Holyrood voting system is a mugs game - but it's entertaining to see the SNP on the receiving end of opportunistic brass neck for a change.
@PolhomeEditor: Ed Miliband would have done better in 2015 if he'd agreed to a "progressive alliance" with the SNP, says @NicolaSturgeon. Well, it's a view.
Would have played straight into Crosby's hands. It might have pushed Labour's vote share in NE England further down. Progressive alliance, nice meaningless turn of phrase, but perhaps too toxic to work.
All the actual evidence says that "fear of SNP" was not an issue in the general election. There is not a single piece of analysis that suggests the voting share was effected overall. None.
A proper arrangement with the SNP would have let Labour claw back some of the green vote and delivered a number of marginals by opposing austerity instead of continuing with it. It would also have definitely gotten rid of Mundell so that's at least one less Tory.
The Tories won their majority because the Liberals were toxic, they targetted the Liberals and they beat the Liberals on the ground in the SW while Labour failed to grow their vote in marginals. It is surprising that this basic, evident and evidenced outcome isn't understood more.
Having thought about it quite a bit in the last few days I have come to the conclusion that Alastair Meeks is once again spot on. The problem in Labour is not these idiots on the far left fringe, they have always been there. The real problem is the incredible weakness of the centre right of the party who seem to have no coherent idea what they are for, how Labour can adapt to the modern world and seem to have no leadership worth a damn.
Until these problems are addressed in a meaningful way many Labour supporters will continue to argue for Corbyn on the basis that he at least believes in something. In the current generation the only one I can think of who might have had the intellectual heft for such a task was Ed Balls and the PM is not alone in missing him.
In the next generation there are a few possibilities such as Jarvis for leadership but I am struggling to see anyone who is going to work out a credible and sellable program for government. Where is Labour's next Mandelson? Or even, lord help us, Brown?
As society becomes more diverse, the politics of identity and culture can only rise in importance. On this front Labour has nothing to offer to the majority, especially in England, and their pandering to Muslim concerns is helping to consolidate Tory support amongst other minorities.
But there are gross inequities in our society that a centre right wing of a left wing party should be able to make a platform on. To take Charles' example why is it ok that the wealthiest in our society should be able to save £1.4m x40% tax on pensions plus ISAs? Our incentives to save as a nation are nothing more than a series of sops to the better off mitigating their tax bills at the cost of the rest of society.
When you look at the educational disadvantages that people from poorer backgrounds suffer, their poorer health and life expectancies, the quality of their housing...there is almost no end of work to do. But it has to be done in the real world where we have a functioning economy which generates the wealth to do it.
It almost sounds like you think these things can be 'solved' by the application of public money; to me, this approach was utter discredited by the New Labour years, when a 50% hike in public spending took place at the same time as life expectancy and income inequalities increased.
To me, these problems can only be tackled by changing culture; we would be a much more prosperous society if more British people had the same attitude to work and education as, say, Ugandan Asians. How you do that I don't know, but more public spending is not the answer.
Of all the ridiculousness of Corbyn, this really has to be the biscuit. It's such bad politics, there's no votes for it, there's huge votes against it, yet he continues to get nailed on it. He just isn't a politician.
A good corollary would be the SNP and the Monarchy. Everyone knows the SNP are a generally republican party but there's no purchase in the debate,it would spook voters and offer no benefit. So they put in place a "steady as she goes" policy, keep the monarchy for now, end the debate.
There's still over 4 months till the vote in Scotland. I'm really starting to think that Labour are over. Their list slippage in the latest polling spells utter disaster for them.
The SNP ( see Wishart ) has also dropped its partitionist agenda because it's unpopular. Good politics imo.
SALMOND'S company was unlimited but he changed it to limited after criticism. As he pointed out given that he was declaring all income in the parliamentary register the claims of lack of transparency were always spurious. You really need to catch up Watford since all of this is in the Scottish parliamentary register of interests.
The suggestion of tax avoidance is also nonsence. The company makes little or no difference to his tax position since all income is taxed when taken. It would only be to his advantage if he had little earned income in the near future which seems improbable. I fear my accountancy training gives me the advantage over social media smearing!
Finally the Scottish register of interests shows a huge level of charitable giving from Salmond. If I were still a unionist I would have a care in this direction of attack since in terms of donations Salmond comes out miles in front of any other MSP/MP. I am frankly surprised that he does not make more of this publically. He would be perfectly justified in doing so.
Unfortunately your accountancy training didn't include the concept of being able to invest the monies help in the company, so benefiting from the ability to generate a return on the deferred tax component.
Additionally, I am sure there will be a point in the future when he has lower incomes.
If it had no benefit then why would he pay the costs (monetary and administrative) to do it this way?
He will always be paying top tax rate till his death so your argument is spurious.
Blame the CIA for the Cold War. Stalin was popular...random arrests under Article 58 of USSR's criminal code must have helped cement the love for the dear leader.
Ed achieved incredibly little in his 5 years as leader of the Labour party but one thing he did manage was to make the crazy delusions of Ken Livingston irrelevant and ignorable. Now he seems for all practical purposes to be deputy leader.
Miliband's decision to resign on the morning after the vote must rank as one of the worst decisions taken by a Labour leader.
He had no choice. He wasn't strong enough to buck the expectation that he should go as the principle of "loser quits" was well established by every loser since Kinnock 1992.
He had a choice, as he could have waited, instead he made a rushed decision which has had a significant impact on Labour.
"Those with a salary of over £32,500 more likely to vote Conservative"
Not if George Osborne royally pisses them off by raiding their future pension pots.
Who else are they going to vote for?
They are not forced to vote at all. In my local area I am politically homeless and there is no-one that I agree with. Staying at home next time (or spoiling my paper) could be a positive decision.
Spoiling your paper (politely, mind) could be a positive decision. I don't believe that staying at home is, as there is no message communicated
Has anyone ever paid any attention to a spoilt ballot paper? The default assumption is the person completing it is mentally incompetent and couldn't follow what to do.
"Those with a salary of over £32,500 more likely to vote Conservative"
Not if George Osborne royally pisses them off by raiding their future pension pots.
Why should the wealthiest get a disproportionate share of the incentives for saving?
Pensions are income deferred, they should be taxed at one point only.
With an ageing population Pensions are going to loom large. The constant raids on pensions by governments both red and blue just show what a mugs game they are. It is fully understandable that many do not make provision, or save via real estate. The latter significantly distorts our housing market, and fuels property bubbles.
I agree - but assumed that @CasinoRoyale was referring to plans to restrict the higher rate tax relief on pension contributions, which strikes me as eminently fair.
(I do quite like the idea of Pension ISAs so they are taxed on going in, but are subsequently tax free. But that's a big change that would need to be carefully consulted on)
I think the idea of a Pension ISA is quite reasonable and sensible but I don't see it being plausibly introduced. How do you deal with the pensions people already have etc? Seems likely to result in a dog's breakfast.
If it can be made to work it seems fair, treat pensions like other savings and let people compare like for like with other ISAs etc
Very easy to deal with pensions people already have - you grandfather them, so they are taxed as income. Easy enough to do. Defined benefit a little more complicated, but again can be resolved by setting up new schemes - perhaps this would be the needed kick to restart the new schemes on a DC basis.
"Those with a salary of over £32,500 more likely to vote Conservative"
Not if George Osborne royally pisses them off by raiding their future pension pots.
Who else are they going to vote for?
They are not forced to vote at all. In my local area I am politically homeless and there is no-one that I agree with. Staying at home next time (or spoiling my paper) could be a positive decision.
Spoiling your paper (politely, mind) could be a positive decision. I don't believe that staying at home is, as there is no message communicated
And some argue, as Janan Ganesh did recently, that low turnout is a sign of content, so turning out and spoiling a ballot is more effective to counter such am argument.
I have long argued that low turnout is due to contentedness. Many people just don't care about politics not because they're angry but because they're content. Angry people want to express their anger and will find a way, people who contentedly don't care and are happy to just go about their lives can ignore the whole process.
Surely one could argue that people don’t vote because they feel that however they vote it doesn’t changing anything. One of the big criticisms of FPTP!
It's got sod all to do with FPTP and everything to do with the failure of socialism and the fall of the iron curtain, combined with the acceptance of civil liberties for minorities etc (most recently gays, previously other minorities) leading to an end to many previous big angry divisions. Turnout has fallen globally regardless of electoral system.
It increased in the UK significantly at the last election even though we overwhelmingly voted to keep FPTP as people saw more of a difference. If we face the next election with a true red in claw and tooth socialist like Corbyn I'd expect it to increase further.
Turnout has been slowly but steadily recovering since 2001. I think Corbyn may depress it though.
@PolhomeEditor: Ed Miliband would have done better in 2015 if he'd agreed to a "progressive alliance" with the SNP, says @NicolaSturgeon. Well, it's a view.
Would have played straight into Crosby's hands. It might have pushed Labour's vote share in NE England further down. Progressive alliance, nice meaningless turn of phrase, but perhaps too toxic to work.
All the actual evidence says that "fear of SNP" was not an issue in the general election. There is not a single piece of analysis that suggests the voting share was effected overall. None.
A proper arrangement with the SNP would have let Labour claw back some of the green vote and delivered a number of marginals by opposing austerity instead of continuing with it. It would also have definitely gotten rid of Mundell so that's at least one less Tory.
The Tories won their majority because the Liberals were toxic, they targetted the Liberals and they beat the Liberals on the ground in the SW while Labour failed to grow their vote in marginals. It is surprising that this basic, evident and evidenced outcome isn't understood more.
The Green vote wouldn't help Labour in marginal seats.
"Those with a salary of over £32,500 more likely to vote Conservative"
Not if George Osborne royally pisses them off by raiding their future pension pots.
Why should the wealthiest get a disproportionate share of the incentives for saving?
Better off people can afford to save more than poorer people. Paying a marginal tax rate of 40% certainly doesn't propel you into the ranks of the rich.
It doesn't, but somebody who earns that amount at some point in their lives is unlikely to cost the state a fortune in old age (healthcare costs excepted).
Saving incentives should be targeted more effectively at the low paid, but the change should not be used as an excuse to raise taxes.
"Those with a salary of over £32,500 more likely to vote Conservative"
Not if George Osborne royally pisses them off by raiding their future pension pots.
Why should the wealthiest get a disproportionate share of the incentives for saving?
Better off people can afford to save more than poorer people. Paying a marginal tax rate of 40% certainly doesn't propel you into the ranks of the rich.
I never claimed that people paying 40% are rich, but they are certainly very well off (c. 2x the average income) in comparison to others. I'm sure that lots of them have much higher expenses, but that's their choice.
I just don't see why they should get 40% relief on the greater amount of saving they can make.
I believe the key words in the sentence are 'strong' and 'based', and the key omission is around timescale. Strong does not just mean economically strong, though it can, and of course Scotland could be strong in many senses when independent in ways which are not economic, and so not based on oil, and even if we do mean economically and many presumptions were based on the oil, without it they could no doubt come up with some new plan or re-balancing to be economically strong without it, in time.
An excellent politician's statement. It will enrage opponents as a lie, but is crafted in such a way it can be defended because it is vague. She will no doubt claim the case was enhanced by oil, but not based on it. For one, even if Scotland were or is to be hit economically core nationalists would still say independence was the preferred option (though a trickier transition than they would like), as for them the case is not economic or based on oil.
Unusual to see a thoughtful , truthful post on any Scottish topic on here from outside ( and inside in Scottp's case, or so he claims ) Scotland.
I only wish my thoughtfulness on the subject could see a way to make the Union appealing to people again, on both sides of the border - the No vote was far too soft for my liking.
For it to have purchase in terms of support for the Union, then you would have to offer something better by staying in the Union. With the spectre of Wales hanging over the debate, we KNOW what "in time" within the Union means - a backward, poverty ridden hell hole.
While the Union can offer nothing positive to Scotlands future, then Independence is the only rational, logical outcome for Scotland.
THE SNP's shadow leader of the House of Commons says he and most of the party's 115,000 members are “relatively relaxed” about not seeking a mandate for an independence referendum in May.
Despite many activists wanting a swift second vote, Pete Wishart, one of the party's most senior MPs and chair of the Commons’ Scottish Affairs Select Committee, said the coming Holyrood election would be about good governance, not the constitution.
The No vote in 2014 was “decisive” and should be respected, he told the Sunday Herald....
“We’ve had that referendum, we got a decisive result, and we said that would be a once in a generation referendum.
That's absolutely true, of course, but it's the first time I can remember an SNP MP saying it. Since they are forbidden to disagree with SNP policy, the assumption is that this line was sanctioned by the Leader herself.
Which once more raises the question of why Unionists won't say they won decisively. Their refusal to do so over the last 15 months has been unhelpful.
oooooooH we have an expert who knows what SNP MP's are and are not allowed to do. You cretinous halfwit he is giving his opinion , we are not talking about the Tory party here we are talking about real politicians, human beings not party robots whipped into shape. Stick to what you know about because it is certainly not the SNP or Scottish politics.
Ah Malky, did you see the news reports yesterday regarding a troughing Westminster fat cat politician setting up an unlimited company for tax avoidance purposes?
Alec Salmond is his name.
Usual Tory lies from you , it is a limited company and pays tax you moron. Invest your JSA on some education.
The press report said that it was an unlimited company (which exempts from the requirement to file at companies house).
Yes it pays tax, but at a lower rate than personal income tax.
FWIW, I don't think there is anything wrong in what he has done, but your defence is garbage!
I beg to differ , your response is the garbage. The press report is ancient and it was changed to a limited company early on. Get your facts right before trying to be a smart arse.
Not being a smart arse. The limited/unlimited point is immaterial.
"Those with a salary of over £32,500 more likely to vote Conservative"
Not if George Osborne royally pisses them off by raiding their future pension pots.
Why should the wealthiest get a disproportionate share of the incentives for saving?
Pensions are income deferred, they should be taxed at one point only.
With an ageing population Pensions are going to loom large. The constant raids on pensions by governments both red and blue just show what a mugs game they are. It is fully understandable that many do not make provision, or save via real estate. The latter significantly distorts our housing market, and fuels property bubbles.
But a consequence of too high a tax rate is too big a concession to saving and therefore a contradiction to the notion of the tax in the first place. I think the suggestion of no tax concessions for pensions but no taxation of pensions is an interesting one, especially given the revised treatment of lump sums. Plus I would also much prefer lower taxation of income anyway. £1m or £1.25m is still a very large pot which most people cannot aspire to. But I would agree with anyone who said that it is important to encourage saving for retirement so that the old do not become a burden.
The problem is that the deficit is stubbornly persistent, and while Osborne got away with it in 2015, that is going to be trickier in 2020.
It is only possible to tax people who have money. Pension pots are tempting targets for just such a chancellor. Brown then Osborne are destroying the incentive to save.
Money in pension funds gets recycled into equities and bonds, so is not lost to the economy. Savings are a good thing.
Worth noting that those with private pensions are going to not require so much state support when older. A classic false economy to penalise savers.
Not penalising them, just reducing the massive handout!
"Those with a salary of over £32,500 more likely to vote Conservative"
Not if George Osborne royally pisses them off by raiding their future pension pots.
Why should the wealthiest get a disproportionate share of the incentives for saving?
Pensions are income deferred, they should be taxed at one point only.
With an ageing population Pensions are going to loom large. The constant raids on pensions by governments both red and blue just show what a mugs game they are. It is fully understandable that many do not make provision, or save via real estate. The latter significantly distorts our housing market, and fuels property bubbles.
But a consequence of too high a tax rate is too big a concession to saving and therefore a contradiction to the notion of the tax in the first place. I think the suggestion of no tax concessions for pensions but no taxation of pensions is an interesting one, especially given the revised treatment of lump sums. Plus I would also much prefer lower taxation of income anyway. £1m or £1.25m is still a very large pot which most people cannot aspire to. But I would agree with anyone who said that it is important to encourage saving for retirement so that the old do not become a burden.
The problem is that the deficit is stubbornly persistent, and while Osborne got away with it in 2015, that is going to be trickier in 2020.
It is only possible to tax people who have money. Pension pots are tempting targets for just such a chancellor. Brown then Osborne are destroying the incentive to save.
Money in pension funds gets recycled into equities and bonds, so is not lost to the economy. Savings are a good thing.
Worth noting that those with private pensions are going to not require so much state support when older. A classic false economy to penalise savers.
Yes, I agree that the need for deficit reduction makes it unlikely that direct taxes will be reduced. However the other side of the coin is spending, and if the structural deficit is controlled, that is that spending is limited to what the nation can spend over the cycle then its maybe possible to cut direct taxes and let the laffer curve do its work. Its a thin argument I know.
I always thought the Tories had a good chance of holding it, due to the demographics being in their favour. Virtually every small town Midlands constituency swung from Labour to Conservative for the same reasons.
Somebody was asking about surprise wins for the conservatives. They had undoubtedly given up on Cannock Chase. We had one national mail shot, one 'insert name her' candidate shot, no canvassing by phone or door to door, and just two posters - one of Miliband in Salmond's pocket, and one saying 'vote Milling' on the wall of the local funeral parlour.
Yet they still won with an average swing against a Labour campaign that was so hyperactive you would have sworn all its activists were on speed. Admittedly, I thought at the time it was a mistake to campaign on 'Save Stafford Hospital', but in the end I don't think it made any difference.
This tells me 2 things:
1) focus groups are a waste of money.
2) in the end, it looks as if the campaigns made no difference - people voted on national issues, e.g. Miliband's hopelessness and Labour's track record, or tuition fees.
That leads inexorably to a third conclusion;
3) Labour are facing major losses in 2020.
I have just spent a couple of days in the East Midlands, and was taken with how much the local economies seem to be moving forward. Places that were marginals no longer feel like places you would expect Labour to get much of a hearing, whichever wing of the party is talking to voters.
The East and West Midlands have shifted from being swing regions, to leaning Conservative in an even year. Outside of Birmingham, Leicester, and Nottingham, they're quite strongly Conservative.
Only 3/10 of the Leics and Rutland seats are Labour. The only 2 marginals of NWLeics and Loughborough are now pretty safe Tory seats.
Labour will not win an election until they have an appeal that works in Loughborough. It is the seat that decides elections. I cannot see Corbyn making progress there.
Perhaps a better way of looking at it is:
Leicester Lab 3 Con 0 Leicestershire Con 7 Lab 0
Labour are increasingly a city party and there aren't enough cities for Labour to win an election.
The most revealing constituency in Leicestershire is Leicestershire NW - a 25% Labour lead in 1997 changing to a 22% Conservative lead in 2015.
That's a trend which is also seen in the other midlands marginals.
Blame the CIA for the Cold War. Stalin was popular...random arrests under Article 58 of USSR's criminal code must have helped cement the love for the dear leader.
Ed achieved incredibly little in his 5 years as leader of the Labour party but one thing he did manage was to make the crazy delusions of Ken Livingston irrelevant and ignorable. Now he seems for all practical purposes to be deputy leader.
Miliband's decision to resign on the morning after the vote must rank as one of the worst decisions taken by a Labour leader.
He had no choice. He wasn't strong enough to buck the expectation that he should go as the principle of "loser quits" was well established by every loser since Kinnock 1992.
He had a choice, as he could have waited, instead he made a rushed decision which has had a significant impact on Labour.
Had he not resigned, the pressure on him to do so would have been massive and he'd simply have ended up being hounded out of office. If he looked weak before the election, just think how bad it would have been afterwards. Kinnock in 1987 at least had the argument that he made gains against Thatcher and had largely reunited his party. Howard in 2005 pre-announced a deferred resignation so drew the sting, and had also made gains. Miliband, by contrast, went backwards.
Besides, would a deferral have prevented Labour MPs from lending Corbyn votes? Would it have changed the electoral process? Would Burnham, Cooper or Kendall have been any more impressive? Would someone else have stood? Would Corbyn have failed to galvanise the far left 'supporters'? The only possible question I can see a 'no' to there is that there might have been a different line-up but would that have mattered? Corbyn's victory was overwhelming and a positive decision by the voters rather than a negative stop-X vote.
You can blame Miliband for many things - above all the stupid election rules - but I don't think that his immediate resignation was one of them.
"Those with a salary of over £32,500 more likely to vote Conservative"
Not if George Osborne royally pisses them off by raiding their future pension pots.
Why should the wealthiest get a disproportionate share of the incentives for saving?
Pensions are income deferred, they should be taxed at one point only.
With an ageing population Pensions are going to loom large. The constant raids on pensions by governments both red and blue just show what a mugs game they are. It is fully understandable that many do not make provision, or save via real estate. The latter significantly distorts our housing market, and fuels property bubbles.
But a consequence of too high a tax rate is too big a concession to saving and therefore a contradiction to the notion of the tax in the first place. I think the suggestion of no tax concessions for pensions but no taxation of pensions is an interesting one, especially given the revised treatment of lump sums. Plus I would also much prefer lower taxation of income anyway. £1m or £1.25m is still a very large pot which most people cannot aspire to. But I would agree with anyone who said that it is important to encourage saving for retirement so that the old do not become a burden.
The problem is that the deficit is stubbornly persistent, and while Osborne got away with it in 2015, that is going to be trickier in 2020.
It is only possible to tax people who have money. Pension pots are tempting targets for just such a chancellor. Brown then Osborne are destroying the incentive to save.
Money in pension funds gets recycled into equities and bonds, so is not lost to the economy. Savings are a good thing.
Worth noting that those with private pensions are going to not require so much state support when older. A classic false economy to penalise savers.
Not penalising them, just reducing the massive handout!
Someone with a maximum pension pot is most likely going to be paying higher rate tax in retirement too.
Interesting that you see a tax increase as ending a handout. Very Corbyn!
@PolhomeEditor: Ed Miliband would have done better in 2015 if he'd agreed to a "progressive alliance" with the SNP, says @NicolaSturgeon. Well, it's a view.
Would have played straight into Crosby's hands. It might have pushed Labour's vote share in NE England further down. Progressive alliance, nice meaningless turn of phrase, but perhaps too toxic to work.
All the actual evidence says that "fear of SNP" was not an issue in the general election. There is not a single piece of analysis that suggests the voting share was effected overall. None.
A proper arrangement with the SNP would have let Labour claw back some of the green vote and delivered a number of marginals by opposing austerity instead of continuing with it. It would also have definitely gotten rid of Mundell so that's at least one less Tory.
The Tories won their majority because the Liberals were toxic, they targetted the Liberals and they beat the Liberals on the ground in the SW while Labour failed to grow their vote in marginals. It is surprising that this basic, evident and evidenced outcome isn't understood more.
The Green vote wouldn't help Labour in marginal seats.
George Osborne reducing pension tax relief to 20% is in line with the move towards the centre and if enacted would save a large sum that should enable him to raise the 40p tax threshold to compensate many higher rate tax payers. It is also good politics as it would be one of Labour's first targets, indeed as far as I am aware Ed Balls intended doing this
Of all the ridiculousness of Corbyn, this really has to be the biscuit. It's such bad politics, there's no votes for it, there's huge votes against it, yet he continues to get nailed on it. He just isn't a politician.
A good corollary would be the SNP and the Monarchy. Everyone knows the SNP are a generally republican party but there's no purchase in the debate,it would spook voters and offer no benefit. So they put in place a "steady as she goes" policy, keep the monarchy for now, end the debate.
There's still over 4 months till the vote in Scotland. I'm really starting to think that Labour are over. Their list slippage in the latest polling spells utter disaster for them.
The SNP ( see Wishart ) has also dropped its partitionist agenda because it's unpopular. Good politics imo.
Yet just today: Nicola Sturgeon: #Indyref "highly likely" if UK votes for Brexit & Scotland votes to stay in http://bbc.in/1OpKNRK
The thing about Democracy is that sometimes people vote for the other guy. The point of PR is to be fairer, not to entrench a particular party in power.
Also, AV isn't in any sense a PR system, as implied in the article.
HOW are we to use our two votes, one for a constituency MSP and one for a list candidate, at the Holyrood election in May?
As an SNP member, I have been told by Nicola Sturgeon to use both for our party but I don’t intend to obey.
As it seems certain the SNP will get back into power on constituency seats alone, I am not going to waste that second vote.
I am not a nationalist, I am a socialist. I am also seeking a second referendum when the time is right.
So, while going SNP with my constituency vote, I am looking for a socialist-independence home for my second one. I have found it in new Left organisation RISE – unambiguously socialist and committed to seeking a mandate for a second referendum.
If people support the SNP they should vote for them- trying to game the Holyrood voting system is a mugs game - but it's entertaining to see the SNP on the receiving end of opportunistic brass neck for a change.
I support Independence not the SNP. As the poll approaches, I will consider the relative levels of the various parties and decide whether or not to vote for a different pro-Independence party on the list. It is quite likely that Glasgow region will be a toss up between Green and SNP for the best list choice. Hopefully there will be some regional polling before the election.
"Those with a salary of over £32,500 more likely to vote Conservative"
Not if George Osborne royally pisses them off by raiding their future pension pots.
Why should the wealthiest get a disproportionate share of the incentives for saving?
Pensions are income deferred, they should be taxed at one point only.
With an ageing population Pensions are going to loom large. The constant raids on pensions by governments both red and blue just show what a mugs game they are. It is fully understandable that many do not make provision, or save via real estate. The latter significantly distorts our housing market, and fuels property bubbles.
But a consequence of too high a tax rate is too big a concession to saving and therefore a contradiction to the notion of the tax in the first place. I think the suggestion of no tax concessions for pensions but no taxation of pensions is an interesting one, especially given the revised treatment of lump sums. Plus I would also much prefer lower taxation of income anyway. £1m or £1.25m is still a very large pot which most people cannot aspire to. But I would agree with anyone who said that it is important to encourage saving for retirement so that the old do not become a burden.
support when older. A classic false economy to penalise savers.
Not penalising them, just reducing the massive handout!
Someone with a maximum pension pot is most likely going to be paying higher rate tax in retirement too.
Interesting that you see a tax increase as ending a handout. Very Corbyn!
What else do you expect from a silver spooned multi-millionaire Tory, he would have you eat cake or sweep chimneys. Puts more in his pocket so off to the workhouse with you.
THE SNP's shadow leader of the House of Commons says he and most of the party's 115,000 members are “relatively relaxed” about not seeking a mandate for an independence referendum in May.
Despite many activists wanting a swift second vote, Pete Wishart, one of the party's most senior MPs and chair of the Commons’ Scottish Affairs Select Committee, said the coming Holyrood election would be about good governance, not the constitution.
The No vote in 2014 was “decisive” and should be respected, he told the Sunday Herald....
“We’ve had that referendum, we got a decisive result, and we said that would be a once in a generation referendum.
That's absolutely true, of course, but it's the first time I can remember an SNP MP saying it. Since they are forbidden to disagree with SNP policy, the assumption is that this line was sanctioned by the Leader herself.
Which once more raises the question of why Unionists won't say they won decisively. Their refusal to do so over the last 15 months has been unhelpful.
.......
Ah Malky, did you see the news reports yesterday regarding a troughing Westminster fat cat politician setting up an unlimited company for tax avoidance purposes?
Alec Salmond is his name.
Usual Tory lies from you , it is a limited company and pays tax you moron. Invest your JSA on some education.
The press report said that it was an unlimited company (which exempts from the requirement to file at companies house).
Yes it pays tax, but at a lower rate than personal income tax.
FWIW, I don't think there is anything wrong in what he has done, but your defence is garbage!
I beg to differ , your response is the garbage. The press report is ancient and it was changed to a limited company early on. Get your facts right before trying to be a smart arse.
Not being a smart arse. The limited/unlimited point is immaterial.
It's the tax deferral that has value.
On the company thing - it is very simple. Using a personal company is a common legal vehicle for reducing the amount of tax to be paid.
For example -
1) Paid as a contractor (personal company) £500 a day * 220 working days = £9000 a month take home
Under AV the biggest gainers are the Tories and the biggest losers Labour while under PR the biggest gainers the LDs, UKIP and the Greens, the biggest losers the SNP, certainly not a clear boost for the left!
Of all the ridiculousness of Corbyn, this really has to be the biscuit. It's such bad politics, there's no votes for it, there's huge votes against it, yet he continues to get nailed on it. He just isn't a politician.
A good corollary would be the SNP and the Monarchy. Everyone knows the SNP are a generally republican party but there's no purchase in the debate,it would spook voters and offer no benefit. So they put in place a "steady as she goes" policy, keep the monarchy for now, end the debate.
There's still over 4 months till the vote in Scotland. I'm really starting to think that Labour are over. Their list slippage in the latest polling spells utter disaster for them.
The SNP ( see Wishart ) has also dropped its partitionist agenda because it's unpopular. Good politics imo.
The SNP have provided an object lesson this last decade of how to transform a single-issue party of protest into a party of government.
Obviously, they've not got everything right but then no government does. But their change in thinking, strategy and style couldn't have been done much better, all the while keeping their core on board.
I always thought the Tories had a good chance of holding it, due to the demographics being in their favour. Virtually every small town Midlands constituency swung from Labour to Conservative for the same reasons.
Somebody was asking about surprise wins for the conservatives. They had undoubtedly given up on Cannock Chase. We had one national mail shot, one 'insert name her' candidate shot, no canvassing by phone or door to door, and just two posters - one of Miliband in Salmond's pocket, and one saying 'vote Milling' on the wall of the local funeral parlour.
Yet they still won with an average swing against a Labour campaign that was so hyperactive you would have sworn all its activists were on speed. Admittedly, I thought at the time it was a mistake to campaign on 'Save Stafford Hospital', but in the end I don't think it made any difference.
This tells me 2 things:
1) focus groups are a waste of money.
2) in the end, it looks as if the campaigns made no difference - people voted on national issues, e.g. Miliband's hopelessness and Labour's track record, or tuition fees.
That leads inexorably to a third conclusion;
3) Labour are facing major losses in 2020.
I have just spent a couple of
The East and West Midlands have shifted from being swing regions, to leaning Conservative in an even year. Outside of Birmingham, Leicester, and Nottingham, they're quite strongly Conservative.
Only 3/10 of the Leics and Rutland seats are Labour. The only 2 marginals of NWLeics and Loughborough are now pretty safe Tory seats.
Labour will not win an election until they have an appeal that works in Loughborough. It is the seat that decides elections. I cannot see Corbyn making progress there.
Perhaps a better way of looking at it is:
Leicester Lab 3 Con 0 Leicestershire Con 7 Lab 0
Labour are increasingly a city party and there aren't enough cities for Labour to win an election.
The most revealing constituency in Leicestershire is Leicestershire NW - a 25% Labour lead in 1997 changing to a 22% Conservative lead in 2015.
That's a trend which is also seen in the other midlands marginals.
I know NW Leics well. It centres on Coalville, and related pit villages. The demography has changed significantly, with a lot of new housing, and employment based on good distribution links via motorways and airport (East Mids airport has all night cargo flights so is ideal for distribution companies to deliver next day).
The way the demographics have gone means that the tories are not going to get in again in the forseeable.
It's got sod all to do with FPTP and everything to do with the failure of socialism and the fall of the iron curtain, combined with the acceptance of civil liberties for minorities etc (most recently gays, previously other minorities) leading to an end to many previous big angry divisions. Turnout has fallen globally regardless of electoral system.
People vote where there is something to vote for and they feel their vote will have an impact on the overall outcome.
Hence, Northern Ireland where sectarian parties are entrenched by FPTP the turnout is the lowest of anywhere in the UK.
"Those with a salary of over £32,500 more likely to vote Conservative"
Not if George Osborne royally pisses them off by raiding their future pension pots.
Why should the wealthiest get a disproportionate share of the incentives for saving?
Pensions are income deferred, they should be taxed at one point only.
With an ageing population Pensions are going to loom large. The constant raids on pensions by governments both red and blue just show what a mugs game they are. It is fully understandable that many do not make provision, or save via real estate. The latter significantly distorts our housing market, and fuels property bubbles.
But a consequence of too high a tax rate is too big a concession to saving and therefore a contradiction to the notion of the tax in the first place. I think the suggestion of no tax concessions for pensions but no taxation of pensions is an interesting one, especially given the revised treatment of lump sums. Plus I would also much prefer lower taxation of income anyway. £1m or £1.25m is still a very large pot which most people cannot aspire to. But I would agree with anyone who said that it is important to encourage saving for retirement so that the old do not become a burden.
The problem is that the deficit is stubbornly persistent, and while Osborne got away with it in 2015, that is going to be trickier in 2020.
It is only possible to tax people who have money. Pension pots are tempting targets for just such a chancellor. Brown then Osborne are destroying the incentive to save.
Money in pension funds gets recycled into equities and bonds, so is not lost to the economy. Savings are a good thing.
Worth noting that those with private pensions are going to not require so much state support when older. A classic false economy to penalise savers.
Not penalising them, just reducing the massive handout!
Someone with a maximum pension pot is most likely going to be paying higher rate tax in retirement too.
Interesting that you see a tax increase as ending a handout. Very Corbyn!
Come on foxinsoxuk, we all know that only the rich can afford socialism
What a difference the choice of system makes - UKIP could have had either 1 or 80 MPs depending on it. As ever with discussion of PR between and within the parties of the left/centre - which system is always one of the huge stumbling blocks.
As used to be a massive proponent of PR but increasingly I now worry about the potential for the far Right to gain seats if we switched. People have always said there would be a threshold, but that hasn't stopped the far right in other countries e.g. Hungary.
I believe the key words in the sentence are 'strong' and 'based', and the key omission is around timescale. Strong does not just mean economically strong, though it can, and of course Scotland could be strong in many senses when independent in ways which are not economic, and so not based on oil, and even if we do mean economically and many presumptions were based on the oil, without it they could no doubt come up with some new plan or re-balancing to be economically strong without it, in time.
An excellent politician's statement. It will enrage opponents as a lie, but is crafted in such a way it can be defended because it is vague. She will no doubt claim the case was enhanced by oil, but not based on it. For one, even if Scotland were or is to be hit economically core nationalists would still say independence was the preferred option (though a trickier transition than they would like), as for them the case is not economic or based on oil.
Unusual to see a thoughtful , truthful post on any Scottish topic on here from outside ( and inside in Scottp's case, or so he claims ) Scotland.
I only wish my thoughtfulness on the subject could see a way to make the Union appealing to people again, on both sides of the border - the No vote was far too soft for my liking.
For it to have purchase in terms of support for the Union, then you would have to offer something better by staying in the Union. With the spectre of Wales hanging over the debate, we KNOW what "in time" within the Union means - a backward, poverty ridden hell hole.
While the Union can offer nothing positive to Scotlands future, then Independence is the only rational, logical outcome for Scotland.
Full fiscal autonomy is the inevitable solution as it was in Quebec
"Those with a salary of over £32,500 more likely to vote Conservative"
Not if George Osborne royally pisses them off by raiding their future pension pots.
Why should the wealthiest get a disproportionate share of the incentives for saving?
Pensions are income deferred, they should be taxed at one point only.
With an ageing population Pensions are going to loom large. The constant raids on pensions by governments both red and blue just show what a mugs game they are. It is fully understandable that many do not make provision, or save via real estate. The latter significantly distorts our housing market, and fuels property bubbles.
But a consequence of too high a tax rate is too big a concession to saving and therefore a contradiction to the notion of the tax in the first place. I think the suggestion of no tax concessions for pensions but no taxation of pensions is an interesting one, especially given the revised treatment of lump sums. Plus I would also much prefer lower taxation of income anyway. £1m or £1.25m is still a very large pot which most people cannot aspire to. But I would agree with anyone who said that it is important to encourage saving for retirement so that the old do not become a burden.
The problem is that the deficit is stubbornly persistent, and while Osborne got away with it in 2015, that is going to be trickier in 2020.
It is only possible to tax people who have money. Pension pots are tempting targets for just such a chancellor. Brown then Osborne are destroying the incentive to save.
Money in pension funds gets recycled into equities and bonds, so is not lost to the economy. Savings are a good thing.
Worth noting that those with private pensions are going to not require so much state support when older. A classic false economy to penalise savers.
Not penalising them, just reducing the massive handout!
Someone with a maximum pension pot is most likely going to be paying higher rate tax in retirement too.
Interesting that you see a tax increase as ending a handout. Very Corbyn!
Come on foxinsoxuk, we all know that only the rich can afford socialism
@PolhomeEditor: Ed Miliband would have done better in 2015 if he'd agreed to a "progressive alliance" with the SNP, says @NicolaSturgeon. Well, it's a view.
Would have played straight into Crosby's hands. It might have pushed Labour's vote share in NE England further down. Progressive alliance, nice meaningless turn of phrase, but perhaps too toxic to work.
All the actual evidence says that "fear of SNP" was not an issue in the general election. There is not a single piece of analysis that suggests the voting share was effected overall. None.
A proper arrangement with the SNP would have let Labour claw back some of the green vote and delivered a number of marginals by opposing austerity instead of continuing with it. It would also have definitely gotten rid of Mundell so that's at least one less Tory.
The Tories won their majority because the Liberals were toxic, they targetted the Liberals and they beat the Liberals on the ground in the SW while Labour failed to grow their vote in marginals. It is surprising that this basic, evident and evidenced outcome isn't understood more.
Fear of a Labour-SNP coalition was absolutely an issue. The question is whether there is anything that can make it not a issue, other than independence.
"Those with a salary of over £32,500 more likely to vote Conservative"
Not if George Osborne royally pisses them off by raiding their future pension pots.
Why should the wealthiest get a disproportionate share of the incentives for saving?
Better off people can afford to save more than poorer people. Paying a marginal tax rate of 40% certainly doesn't propel you into the ranks of the rich.
I never claimed that people paying 40% are rich, but they are certainly very well off (c. 2x the average income) in comparison to others. I'm sure that lots of them have much higher expenses, but that's their choice.
I just don't see why they should get 40% relief on the greater amount of saving they can make.
They get 40% relief because they pay income tax at a marginal rate of 40%. I'm perfectly happy to see the tax relief reduced if the marginal rate is reduced, or the threshold is increased, as a quid pro quo. Taxing someone at 40%, but treating them as a basic rate taxpayer for the purpose of relief is simply unreasonable.
George Osborne reducing pension tax relief to 20% is in line with the move towards the centre and if enacted would save a large sum that should enable him to raise the 40p tax threshold to compensate many higher rate tax payers. It is also good politics as it would be one of Labour's first targets, indeed as far as I am aware Ed Balls intended doing this
It was something the LDs called for during coalition days too.
In principle it would be OK to get rid of tax relief on pensions, but not tax the resulting pension, but who would trust a future government to go back on this promise and to tax after all? It would require complex grandfathering arrangements for decades too.
At least with ISAs we can cash out if the government plans to do that, with a pension we cannot.
Not really. The current private sector maximum (ie before tax incentives are removed) is a £million (think public sector is fiddled with dodgy maths so it's more- but let's not go there). A million quid will buy you about £30k index linked at 65 with spouse provision.
Now if ever we get out of our 0.5% interest death spiral and Govt bond yields one day rise (please!!!) that £30k may rise a bit, but right now that's where we are.
(Higher interest rates would also eliminate most DB pension deficits at a stroke removing a vast burden from industry and help quell BTL which I am convinced is in turn largely a function of low interest rates, as people seek some sort of secure old age return which isn't available at present due to low interest rates, demographics, and Govts - especially the heinous Brown - buggering about with pensions).
I saw the Revenant this weekend. A fairly gruelling film, with great landscapes, but I don't think either the best film or actor of the year. Best Cinematography or supporting actor maybe. There wasn't much nuance in DiCaprio's performance.
Saw the Revenant last night, Tom Hardy was brilliant, Do Caprio will get it because it is his turn. Forme it is the best film of the year so far but seeing Big Short next weekend
I beg to differ , your response is the garbage. The press report is ancient and it was changed to a limited company early on. Get your facts right before trying to be a smart arse.
Not being a smart arse. The limited/unlimited point is immaterial.
It's the tax deferral that has value.
There is no evidence that tax deferral is used by Salmond or was the reason for setting up a company.
It makes sense and is far easier where you have earnings on top of a salary to funnel them through a company to make the accounting for your tax far more straightforward while still taking the entire income (and incurring full tax) within the same financial period.
In any case, the electorate of Gordon were asked to decide about Salmond's financial arrangements a few weeks after this story broke and they decided that they were perfectly acceptable, more than doubling the previous SNP vote and taking the party from third to winning the seat.
Someone with a maximum pension pot is most likely going to be paying higher rate tax in retirement too.
...
Is that true I wonder. How big would the pot have to be to provide an index linked pension of £30k p.a. plus an index linked survivor's pension of £15k p.a..? Can't be that unusual, I have got one and I was a higher rate taxpayer for many, many years.
The problem with all this tinkering is that it continues to increase the difference between the pension provisions in the private and public sectors.
As a result of far sighted legislation from both parties in the sixties and early seventies, the UK once had the best pension provision of any country on the planet and most of it was funded. Then the politicians, starting with Lawson, started tinkering in order to fund their pet projects and/or do favours for their client groups. Osborne's latest set of ideas is just another twist in that downward spiral, another example of stealing from today and lumping the costs onto future generations. Pensions are a long term multi-generational issue but our current breed of politicians seem only capable of thinking as far ahead as the next general election.
What a difference the choice of system makes - UKIP could have had either 1 or 80 MPs depending on it. As ever with discussion of PR between and within the parties of the left/centre - which system is always one of the huge stumbling blocks.
As used to be a massive proponent of PR but increasingly I now worry about the potential for the far Right to gain seats if we switched. People have always said there would be a threshold, but that hasn't stopped the far right in other countries e.g. Hungary.
AV would also help the Tories keep UKIP votes on side post EU ref
Of all the ridiculousness of Corbyn, this really has to be the biscuit. It's such bad politics, there's no votes for it, there's huge votes against it, yet he continues to get nailed on it. He just isn't a politician.
A good corollary would be the SNP and the Monarchy. Everyone knows the SNP are a generally republican party but there's no purchase in the debate,it would spook voters and offer no benefit. So they put in place a "steady as she goes" policy, keep the monarchy for now, end the debate.
There's still over 4 months till the vote in Scotland. I'm really starting to think that Labour are over. Their list slippage in the latest polling spells utter disaster for them.
The SNP ( see Wishart ) has also dropped its partitionist agenda because it's unpopular. Good politics imo.
Yet just today: Nicola Sturgeon: #Indyref "highly likely" if UK votes for Brexit & Scotland votes to stay in http://bbc.in/1OpKNRK
Malcolm, there's nothing more comfortable than selling out to the British establishment, the likes of Wishart won't be leaving their Westminster and London berths anytime soon if they can help it.
But there are gross inequities in our society that a centre right wing of a left wing party should be able to make a platform on. To take Charles' example why is it ok that the wealthiest in our society should be able to save £1.4m x40% tax on pensions plus ISAs? Our incentives to save as a nation are nothing more than a series of sops to the better off mitigating their tax bills at the cost of the rest of society.
When you look at the educational disadvantages that people from poorer backgrounds suffer, their poorer health and life expectancies, the quality of their housing...there is almost no end of work to do. But it has to be done in the real world where we have a functioning economy which generates the wealth to do it.
It almost sounds like you think these things can be 'solved' by the application of public money; to me, this approach was utter discredited by the New Labour years, when a 50% hike in public spending took place at the same time as life expectancy and income inequalities increased.
To me, these problems can only be tackled by changing culture; we would be a much more prosperous society if more British people had the same attitude to work and education as, say, Ugandan Asians. How you do that I don't know, but more public spending is not the answer.
I am not saying the solution is more public money. What I am saying is that we have a very unfair and uneven society where the majority don't have anything like an equal chance and their talents are wasted.
Changing culture is indeed key. The quality of education given in our schools in poorer areas remains a disgrace and Gove's reforms are only the start, along with the Lib Dem's pupil premium. Where are Labour's ideas?
@PolhomeEditor: Ed Miliband would have done better in 2015 if he'd agreed to a "progressive alliance" with the SNP, says @NicolaSturgeon. Well, it's a view.
Would have played straight into Crosby's hands. It might have pushed Labour's vote share in NE England further down. Progressive alliance, nice meaningless turn of phrase, but perhaps too toxic to work.
All the actual evidence says that "fear of SNP" was not an issue in the general election. There is not a single piece of analysis that suggests the voting share was effected overall. None.
A proper arrangement with the SNP would have let Labour claw back some of the green vote and delivered a number of marginals by opposing austerity instead of continuing with it. It would also have definitely gotten rid of Mundell so that's at least one less Tory.
The Tories won their majority because the Liberals were toxic, they targetted the Liberals and they beat the Liberals on the ground in the SW while Labour failed to grow their vote in marginals. It is surprising that this basic, evident and evidenced outcome isn't understood more.
Fear of a Labour-SNP coalition was absolutely an issue. The question is whether there is anything that can make it not a issue, other than independence.
No it wasn't. There is evidence, we have surveys and analysis which quite clearly concludes that it was not an issue** and not a single piece of evidence that it made a difference.
**This doesn't mean it did not change any votes but the evidence indicates that the attraction to the SNP balanced the fear of the SNP amongst voters meaning that no effective difference in the final result can b found.
George Osborne reducing pension tax relief to 20% is in line with the move towards the centre and if enacted would save a large sum that should enable him to raise the 40p tax threshold to compensate many higher rate tax payers. It is also good politics as it would be one of Labour's first targets, indeed as far as I am aware Ed Balls intended doing this
It was something the LDs called for during coalition days too.
In principle it would be OK to get rid of tax relief on pensions, but not tax the resulting pension, but who would trust a future government to go back on this promise and to tax after all? It would require complex grandfathering arrangements for decades too.
At least with ISAs we can cash out if the government plans to do that, with a pension we cannot.
Brown, Osborne et al seem to view our pension funds as belonging to the government.
George Osborne reducing pension tax relief to 20% is in line with the move towards the centre and if enacted would save a large sum that should enable him to raise the 40p tax threshold to compensate many higher rate tax payers. It is also good politics as it would be one of Labour's first targets, indeed as far as I am aware Ed Balls intended doing this
It was something the LDs called for during coalition days too.
In principle it would be OK to get rid of tax relief on pensions, but not tax the resulting pension, but who would trust a future government to go back on this promise and to tax after all? It would require complex grandfathering arrangements for decades too.
At least with ISAs we can cash out if the government plans to do that, with a pension we cannot.
I'm really not convinced that Osborne will do this. The complexities are horrendous. We'll know in March.
George Osborne reducing pension tax relief to 20% is in line with the move towards the centre and if enacted would save a large sum that should enable him to raise the 40p tax threshold to compensate many higher rate tax payers. It is also good politics as it would be one of Labour's first targets, indeed as far as I am aware Ed Balls intended doing this
It was something the LDs called for during coalition days too.
In principle it would be OK to get rid of tax relief on pensions, but not tax the resulting pension, but who would trust a future government to go back on this promise and to tax after all? It would require complex grandfathering arrangements for decades too.
At least with ISAs we can cash out if the government plans to do that, with a pension we cannot.
Brown, Osborne et al seem to view our pension funds as belonging to the government.
No, a good chunk of our pension funds are donated by poor taxpayers. Our problem is high tax rates. The higher the tax rate and the more is spent on welfare then the less incentive to save and more to rely on the state which puts pressure on welfare spending and incentivises higher taxes which...
On the company thing - it is very simple. Using a personal company is a common legal vehicle for reducing the amount of tax to be paid.
For example -
1) Paid as a contractor (personal company) £500 a day * 220 working days = £9000 a month take home
2) PAYE - £110,000 a yesr = £5750 take home
for half that
a) Contractor - £250 per day - £4550 take home
b) PAYE £55,000 - £3250 take home
Figures approx to about £50
This is why people do this.
Hardly Alan Salmond wasn't using a Personal Service company to do work that would be paid for under PAYE, he was moving from Self employment to limited company.. So the tax impact was actually minimal the only real difference was the publication of turnover...
I could bore people for hours on the reasons why people use PSC's. The first argument I would destroy is that PSC turnover would be the same as PAYE salary (it wouldn't be most examples show PAYE pay would be at most 60% of PSC turnover)...
HOW are we to use our two votes, one for a constituency MSP and one for a list candidate, at the Holyrood election in May?
As an SNP member, I have been told by Nicola Sturgeon to use both for our party but I don’t intend to obey.
As it seems certain the SNP will get back into power on constituency seats alone, I am not going to waste that second vote.
I am not a nationalist, I am a socialist. I am also seeking a second referendum when the time is right.
So, while going SNP with my constituency vote, I am looking for a socialist-independence home for my second one. I have found it in new Left organisation RISE – unambiguously socialist and committed to seeking a mandate for a second referendum.
If people support the SNP they should vote for them- trying to game the Holyrood voting system is a mugs game - but it's entertaining to see the SNP on the receiving end of opportunistic brass neck for a change.
Does the Scottish electoral system work the same way as the London Assembly system? i.e. constituency seats won count against the top-up list proportionality? If so, then assuming the SNP win 70+ constituency seats, they'd need to win well over 50% of the list vote, perhaps 70%+[*] to win any list seats at all. Since that won't happen, an SNP list vote is highly likely to be effectively wasted and therefore it's understandable that some separatists would want to encourage people to vote for a different separatist party in the list vote.
[*] I could run an analysis but I haven't got a round tuit.
@PolhomeEditor: Ed Miliband would have done better in 2015 if he'd agreed to a "progressive alliance" with the SNP, says @NicolaSturgeon. Well, it's a view.
Would have played straight into Crosby's hands. It might have pushed Labour's vote share in NE England further down. Progressive alliance, nice meaningless turn of phrase, but perhaps too toxic to work.
All the actual evidence says that "fear of SNP" was not an issue in the general election. There is not a single piece of analysis that suggests the voting share was effected overall. None.
A proper arrangement with the SNP would have let Labour claw back some of the green vote and delivered a number of marginals by opposing austerity instead of continuing with it. It would also have definitely gotten rid of Mundell so that's at least one less Tory.
The Tories won their majority because the Liberals were toxic, they targetted the Liberals and they beat the Liberals on the ground in the SW while Labour failed to grow their vote in marginals. It is surprising that this basic, evident and evidenced outcome isn't understood more.
Fear of a Labour-SNP coalition was absolutely an issue. The question is whether there is anything that can make it not a issue, other than independence.
No it wasn't. There is evidence, we have surveys and analysis which quite clearly concludes that it was not an issue** and not a single piece of evidence that it made a difference.
**This doesn't mean it did not change any votes but the evidence indicates that the attraction to the SNP balanced the fear of the SNP amongst voters meaning that no effective difference in the final result can b found.
I disagree. The SNP voters were the useful idiots that gave the Tories a majority, by their devastation of SLab and the dislike of the English and Welsh for a Scottish sectarian party holding sway over Britain, that's clear to me.
Blame the CIA for the Cold War. Stalin was popular...random arrests under Article 58 of USSR's criminal code must have helped cement the love for the dear leader.
Ed achieved incredibly little in his 5 years as leader of the Labour party but one thing he did manage was to make the crazy delusions of Ken Livingston irrelevant and ignorable. Now he seems for all practical purposes to be deputy leader.
Miliband's decision to resign on the morning after the vote must rank as one of the worst decisions taken by a Labour leader.
He had no choice. He wasn't strong enough to buck the expectation that he should go as the principle of "loser quits" was well established by every loser since Kinnock 1992.
He had a choice, as he could have waited, instead he made a rushed decision which has had a significant impact on Labour.
It's not his fault that some Labour MPs were idiotic enough to give Corbyn charity nominations - and if Miliband had waited, Corbyn would still have stood.
Sad to see most of Wales in red. Doesn't stop it from trending Tory though...
The Welsh drift is consistent with England: rural areas returning Tory after flirting with Lib Dems; former heavy industry areas either trending Tory as they lose the historic connections and become commuter belt, or remaining strongly Labour if low-income high-benefits.
I don't know whether Welsh Labour is in as hollow a state as Scottish Labour was ten years ago; what is clear is that Plaid is no SNP.
The election next year stands to be very interesting. I doubt Labour will retain their majority* but can't see anyone else forming a government and they will presumably have to rely on Plaid support. If Plaid are canny, they'll turn down a formal deal and demand vote-by-vote concessions. I can't see Labour winning much support elsewhere though if Plaid abstain then the Lib Dems might become important if Con+UKIP is marginally larger than Lab, which is possible. However I suspect that the small number of top-up seats will count against UKIP and for Labour.
* strictly speaking, 30/60 isn't a majority but it's as near as damn it.
I believe the key words in the sentence are 'strong' and 'based', and the key omission is around timescale. Strong does not just mean economically strong, though it can, and of course Scotland could be strong in many senses when independent in ways which are not economic, and so not based on oil, and even if we do mean economically and many presumptions were based on the oil, without it they could no doubt come up with some new plan or re-balancing to be economically strong without it, in time.
An excellent politician's statement. It will enrage opponents as a lie, but is crafted in such a way it can be defended because it is vague. She will no doubt claim the case was enhanced by oil, but not based on it. For one, even if Scotland were or is to be hit economically core nationalists would still say independence was the preferred option (though a trickier transition than they would like), as for them the case is not economic or based on oil.
Unusual to see a thoughtful , truthful post on any Scottish topic on here from outside ( and inside in Scottp's case, or so he claims ) Scotland.
I only wish my thoughtfulness on the subject could see a way to make the Union appealing to people again, on both sides of the border - the No vote was far too soft for my liking.
For it to have purchase in terms of support for the Union, then you would have to offer something better by staying in the Union. With the spectre of Wales hanging over the debate, we KNOW what "in time" within the Union means - a backward, poverty ridden hell hole.
While the Union can offer nothing positive to Scotlands future, then Independence is the only rational, logical outcome for Scotland.
A shame, then, that as Pete Wishart admits, the matter is off the table for the foreseeable future as the referendum result was decisive.
The East and West Midlands have shifted from being swing regions, to leaning Conservative in an even year. Outside of Birmingham, Leicester, and Nottingham, they're quite strongly Conservative.
Only 3/10 of the Leics and Rutland seats are Labour. The only 2 marginals of NWLeics and Loughborough are now pretty safe Tory seats.
Labour will not win an election until they have an appeal that works in Loughborough. It is the seat that decides elections. I cannot see Corbyn making progress there.
Perhaps a better way of looking at it is:
Leicester Lab 3 Con 0 Leicestershire Con 7 Lab 0
Labour are increasingly a city party and there aren't enough cities for Labour to win an election.
The most revealing constituency in Leicestershire is Leicestershire NW - a 25% Labour lead in 1997 changing to a 22% Conservative lead in 2015.
That's a trend which is also seen in the other midlands marginals.
I know NW Leics well. It centres on Coalville, and related pit villages. The demography has changed significantly, with a lot of new housing, and employment based on good distribution links via motorways and airport (East Mids airport has all night cargo flights so is ideal for distribution companies to deliver next day).
The way the demographics have gone means that the tories are not going to get in again in the forseeable.
The pro-Conservative demographic trends in Leicestershire NW are linked but opposite to the pro-Labour trends in Leicester.
But the places with pro-Conservative demographic trends receive less publicity because they are in 'drive past' areas to the urban based media.
Labour's problem is that they are increasingly associated with minority voting blocs:
City, public sector, non-white, young
whereas the Conservatives have the larger voting blocs:
Non-city, private sector, white, old
What is also interesting is that all 10 Leicestershire constituencies are now safe for either Labour or the Conservatives - big general election wins are going to be harder to achieve.
Of all the ridiculousness of Corbyn, this really has to be the biscuit. It's such bad politics, there's no votes for it, there's huge votes against it, yet he continues to get nailed on it. He just isn't a politician.
A good corollary would be the SNP and the Monarchy. Everyone knows the SNP are a generally republican party but there's no purchase in the debate,it would spook voters and offer no benefit. So they put in place a "steady as she goes" policy, keep the monarchy for now, end the debate.
There's still over 4 months till the vote in Scotland. I'm really starting to think that Labour are over. Their list slippage in the latest polling spells utter disaster for them.
The SNP ( see Wishart ) has also dropped its partitionist agenda because it's unpopular. Good politics imo.
Yet just today: Nicola Sturgeon: #Indyref "highly likely" if UK votes for Brexit & Scotland votes to stay in http://bbc.in/1OpKNRK
Sad to see most of Wales in red. Doesn't stop it from trending Tory though...
If drift it be it's probably due to the fact that Wales is less a land of big heavy industry employers and employees than the past and increasingly is a land of SME's. Don't expect a Tory govt in Cardiff bay anytime soon, but Labour will struggle to hold on alone past May. Sadly that will probably mean Leanne Wood getting a small say. God help us.
If people support the SNP they should vote for them- trying to game the Holyrood voting system is a mugs game - but it's entertaining to see the SNP on the receiving end of opportunistic brass neck for a change.
Does the Scottish electoral system work the same way as the London Assembly system? i.e. constituency seats won count against the top-up list proportionality? If so, then assuming the SNP win 70+ constituency seats, they'd need to win well over 50% of the list vote, perhaps 70%+[*] to win any list seats at all. Since that won't happen, an SNP list vote is highly likely to be effectively wasted and therefore it's understandable that some separatists would want to encourage people to vote for a different separatist party in the list vote.
[*] I could run an analysis but I haven't got a round tuit.
The cut offs are not absolute but rough.
If you win ever constituency, you need roughly 55% on the list to get an extra list MSP.
If you win no constituency, you need roughly 6% on the list to get a first MSP.
D'Hondt also make it even more complex as you don't lose absolute numbers from the list based on number of constituencies, it is a proportional devaluation of your list vote.
It is not completely proportional mainly because there are multiple regions (whereas London is a single region so is much closer to absolute proportionality). And there is a slight difference in the make up of a couple of the regions, two regions have ten constituencies and one has eight but all return 7 list MSPs.
Also there is a big difference to Wales and London as the List to Seat ratio is much closer to parity in Scotland.
Of all the ridiculousness of Corbyn, this really has to be the biscuit. It's such bad politics, there's no votes for it, there's huge votes against it, yet he continues to get nailed on it. He just isn't a politician.
A good corollary would be the SNP and the Monarchy. Everyone knows the SNP are a generally republican party but there's no purchase in the debate,it would spook voters and offer no benefit. So they put in place a "steady as she goes" policy, keep the monarchy for now, end the debate.
There's still over 4 months till the vote in Scotland. I'm really starting to think that Labour are over. Their list slippage in the latest polling spells utter disaster for them.
The SNP ( see Wishart ) has also dropped its partitionist agenda because it's unpopular. Good politics imo.
Yet just today: Nicola Sturgeon: #Indyref "highly likely" if UK votes for Brexit & Scotland votes to stay in http://bbc.in/1OpKNRK
She has no power to call a second referendum.
Not true. She has no legal authority to call a second referendum. Power is a rather different beast though.
@PolhomeEditor: Ed Miliband would have done better in 2015 if he'd agreed to a "progressive alliance" with the SNP, says @NicolaSturgeon. Well, it's a view.
Would have played straight into Crosby's hands. It might have pushed Labour's vote share in NE England further down. Progressive alliance, nice meaningless turn of phrase, but perhaps too toxic to work.
All the actual evidence says that "fear of SNP" was not an issue in the general election. There is not a single piece of analysis that suggests the voting share was effected overall. None.
It was.
You might not want to believe this but all the anti-Englishness that SLAB and the SNP have encouraged had an effect in England in 2015.
Sad to see most of Wales in red. Doesn't stop it from trending Tory though...
The Welsh drift is consistent with England: rural areas returning Tory after flirting with Lib Dems; former heavy industry areas either trending Tory as they lose the historic connections and become commuter belt, or remaining strongly Labour if low-income high-benefits.
I don't know whether Welsh Labour is in as hollow a state as Scottish Labour was ten years ago; what is clear is that Plaid is no SNP.
The election next year stands to be very interesting. I doubt Labour will retain their majority* but can't see anyone else forming a government and they will presumably have to rely on Plaid support. If Plaid are canny, they'll turn down a formal deal and demand vote-by-vote concessions. I can't see Labour winning much support elsewhere though if Plaid abstain then the Lib Dems might become important if Con+UKIP is marginally larger than Lab, which is possible. However I suspect that the small number of top-up seats will count against UKIP and for Labour.
* strictly speaking, 30/60 isn't a majority but it's as near as damn it.
It is interesting to see this - reminds me of the story told to me by a chap, years back who was deciding on locating a factory.
He considered Northern UK, but the local Labour politicians (ex industrial area) made it clear they *didn't want* development. So the factory went to Malaysia.
Sad to see most of Wales in red. Doesn't stop it from trending Tory though...
The Welsh drift is consistent with England: rural areas returning Tory after flirting with Lib Dems; former heavy industry areas either trending Tory as they lose the historic connections and become commuter belt, or remaining strongly Labour if low-income high-benefits.
I don't know whether Welsh Labour is in as hollow a state as Scottish Labour was ten years ago; what is clear is that Plaid is no SNP.
The election next year stands to be very interesting. I doubt Labour will retain their majority* but can't see anyone else forming a government and they will presumably have to rely on Plaid support. If Plaid are canny, they'll turn down a formal deal and demand vote-by-vote concessions. I can't see Labour winning much support elsewhere though if Plaid abstain then the Lib Dems might become important if Con+UKIP is marginally larger than Lab, which is possible. However I suspect that the small number of top-up seats will count against UKIP and for Labour.
* strictly speaking, 30/60 isn't a majority but it's as near as damn it.
How many Lib Dens will there be though seriously - 3?
George Osborne reducing pension tax relief to 20% is in line with the move towards the centre and if enacted would save a large sum that should enable him to raise the 40p tax threshold to compensate many higher rate tax payers. It is also good politics as it would be one of Labour's first targets, indeed as far as I am aware Ed Balls intended doing this
It was something the LDs called for during coalition days too.
In principle it would be OK to get rid of tax relief on pensions, but not tax the resulting pension, but who would trust a future government to go back on this promise and to tax after all? It would require complex grandfathering arrangements for decades too.
At least with ISAs we can cash out if the government plans to do that, with a pension we cannot.
I'm really not convinced that Osborne will do this. The complexities are horrendous. We'll know in March.
We shall know indeed, though the complexities involved are hardly likely to put anyone off. From the politician's point of view whether the money arrive into the treasury before the effect of the complexities kick in is the key point and they have a definite date in mind, 2020. From their point of view what happens after the next GE is irrelevant.
From the Treasury Civil Servants' point of view, complexities are what they thrive on, the more complex the better - months of work needing an ever growing number of people to monitor, consider, draft, report back, new committees to be formed and even, nirvana, inter-departmental working groups. And of course none of it affects them as they are all on PAYE with defined benefit pensions.
On the company thing - it is very simple. Using a personal company is a common legal vehicle for reducing the amount of tax to be paid.
For example -
1) Paid as a contractor (personal company) £500 a day * 220 working days = £9000 a month take home
2) PAYE - £110,000 a yesr = £5750 take home
for half that
a) Contractor - £250 per day - £4550 take home
b) PAYE £55,000 - £3250 take home
Figures approx to about £50
This is why people do this.
Hardly Alan Salmond wasn't using a Personal Service company to do work that would be paid for under PAYE, he was moving from Self employment to limited company.. So the tax impact was actually minimal the only real difference was the publication of turnover...
I could bore people for hours on the reasons why people use PSC's. The first argument I would destroy is that PSC turnover would be the same as PAYE salary (it wouldn't be most examples show PAYE pay would be at most 60% of PSC turnover)...
Another tax advantage of working as a Limited Company over self employment or PAYE is that a ltd co can effectively be used as a pension, dodging both the limits and the Tax hike that Charles advocates.
This is done by leaving money in the company to accumulate, thereby dodging both income and dividend taxation. I suspect Mr Salmond has maxed out his pensions already so there is advantage here.
He can then pay out dividends in retirement or alternatively liquidate the company and pay tax at that point, or give it all to his own charitable foundation.
I am not suggesting that this is what he has in mind, but it is a very viable way for company directors to get around pension limits in ways that those on PAYE cannot.
@PolhomeEditor: Ed Miliband would have done better in 2015 if he'd agreed to a "progressive alliance" with the SNP, says @NicolaSturgeon. Well, it's a view.
Would have played straight into Crosby's hands. It might have pushed Labour's vote share in NE England further down. Progressive alliance, nice meaningless turn of phrase, but perhaps too toxic to work.
All the actual evidence says that "fear of SNP" was not an issue in the general election. There is not a single piece of analysis that suggests the voting share was effected overall. None.
A proper arrangement with the SNP would have let Labour claw back some of the green vote and delivered a number of marginals by opposing austerity instead of continuing with it. It would also have definitely gotten rid of Mundell so that's at least one less Tory.
The Tories won their majority because the Liberals were toxic, they targetted the Liberals and they beat the Liberals on the ground in the SW while Labour failed to grow their vote in marginals. It is surprising that this basic, evident and evidenced outcome isn't understood more.
Fear of a Labour-SNP coalition was absolutely an issue. The question is whether there is anything that can make it not a issue, other than independence.
No it wasn't. There is evidence, we have surveys and analysis which quite clearly concludes that it was not an issue** and not a single piece of evidence that it made a difference.
**This doesn't mean it did not change any votes but the evidence indicates that the attraction to the SNP balanced the fear of the SNP amongst voters meaning that no effective difference in the final result can b found.
Please do keep thinking all that. I'm sure the LDs who lost their seats in their LD/Tory marginals will be falling over to thank you.
Another tax advantage of working as a Limited Company over self employment or PAYE is that a ltd co can effectively be used as a pension, dodging both the limits and the Tax hike that Charles advocates.
This is done by leaving money in the company to accumulate, thereby dodging both income and dividend taxation. I suspect Mr Salmond has maxed out his pensions already so there is advantage here.
He can then pay out dividends in retirement or alternatively liquidate the company and pay tax at that point, or give it all to his own charitable foundation.
I am not suggesting that this is what he has in mind, but it is a very viable way for company directors to get around pension limits in ways that those on PAYE cannot.
Note: I am not a tax accountant!
Or he could have more money than he could ever need and prefers to slip £400 to an accountant to do his books than spend a couple of weekends filling in Self Assessment forms.
the evidence indicates that the attraction to the SNP balanced the fear of the SNP amongst voters meaning that no effective difference in the final result can b found.
That's nearly as spectacularly wrong as "Scotland can't flood"
Those attracted to the SNP (in Scotland, where they were standing) voted for the SNP, costing Labour seats.
Those in fear of the SNP (in England) did not vote for the SNP, or Labour, costing Labour seats.
Two forces acting in the same direction do not balance each other out...
@PolhomeEditor: Ed Miliband would have done better in 2015 if he'd agreed to a "progressive alliance" with the SNP, says @NicolaSturgeon. Well, it's a view.
Would have played straight into Crosby's hands. It might have pushed Labour's vote share in NE England further down. Progressive alliance, nice meaningless turn of phrase, but perhaps too toxic to work.
All the actual evidence says that "fear of SNP" was not an issue in the general election. There is not a single piece of analysis that suggests the voting share was effected overall. None.
A proper arrangement with the SNP would have let Labour claw back some of the green vote and delivered a number of marginals by opposing austerity instead of continuing with it. It would also have definitely gotten rid of Mundell so that's at least one less Tory.
The Tories won their majority because the Liberals were toxic, they targetted the Liberals and they beat the Liberals on the ground in the SW while Labour failed to grow their vote in marginals. It is surprising that this basic, evident and evidenced outcome isn't understood more.
Fear of a Labour-SNP coalition was absolutely an issue. The question is whether there is anything that can make it not a issue, other than independence.
No it wasn't. There is evidence, we have surveys and analysis which quite clearly concludes that it was not an issue** and not a single piece of evidence that it made a difference.
**This doesn't mean it did not change any votes but the evidence indicates that the attraction to the SNP balanced the fear of the SNP amongst voters meaning that no effective difference in the final result can b found.
Do you have links to these analyses and surveys?
It's a very very counterintuitive conclusion. That doesn't mean it is wrong but I would want to look very closely at the methodology and reasoning behind such studies.
You make fair points, but by continually referring back to Brown you appear to be diverting attention from Osborne. He'll be judged on what he does not what Brown did.
What he has done is cut the deficit and improve the structural position year after year.
How many other Chancellor's have done the same or as well as that?
I've no idea but you make my point nicely, continually banging on about Brown reeks of insecurity. Let's judge Osborne not Brown.
People only bring up Brown when ludicrous charges are levied against Osborne like that he is borrowing. No shit Sherlock of course he is borrowing based on what he inherited from Brown - you can't bring up one issue without bringing up the cause. You need to judge a Chancellor based on the changes they cause and his change is a lowered deficit not an increased one.
If we want to judge Osborne then lets judge Osborne. He has: Cut the deficit year after year Cut the structural deficit Rebalanced the economy significantly away from public sector employment to private sector Presided over a boom in jobs Presided recently over one of the fastest growing economies while cutting the deficit Proved his detractors wrong time and again - eg Balls, '5 million unemployed' Blanchard, Krugman etc
To me that seems like an impressive record.
Borrowed / is borrowing hundreds of billions more than he said he would Increased government debt every year to over 11% more than he said he would Increased the current account deficit to record levels Increased the imbalances in the economy even more towards wealth consumption Presided over falling real wages Presided over the highest budget and current account deficits in the G7 Presided over the savings rate falling to a record low Presided over falling home ownership Proved himself wrong time and time again - borrowing, 'March of the Makers', export drives Created pointless QUANGOs Taken no action against public sector fatcats as he promised he would
the evidence indicates that the attraction to the SNP balanced the fear of the SNP amongst voters meaning that no effective difference in the final result can b found.
That's nearly as spectacularly wrong as "Scotland can't flood"
Those attracted to the SNP (in Scotland, where they were standing) voted for the SNP, costing Labour seats.
Those in fear of the SNP (in England) did not vote for the SNP, or Labour, costing Labour seats.
Two forces acting in the same direction do not balance each other out...
Two fine points.
With only two errors.
Labour vs SNP in Scotland makes no difference in terms of the overall result if they are in an arrangement.
The attraction to the SNP in England and Wales has been demonstrated to be equivalent to the fear of the SNP making no difference in terms of the overall result.
But apart from that, great post Scotty, really hit the nail on the thumb.
The East and West Midlands have shifted from being swing regions, to leaning Conservative in an even year. Outside of Birmingham, Leicester, and Nottingham, they're quite strongly Conservative.
Only 3/10 of the Leics and Rutland seats are Labour. The only 2 marginals of NWLeics and Loughborough are now pretty safe Tory seats.
Labour will not win an election until they have an appeal that works in Loughborough. It is the seat that decides elections. I cannot see Corbyn making progress there.
Perhaps a better way of looking at it is:
Leicester Lab 3 Con 0 Leicestershire Con 7 Lab 0
Labour are increasingly a city party and there aren't enough cities for Labour to win an election.
The most revealing constituency in Leicestershire is Leicestershire NW - a 25% Labour lead in 1997 changing to a 22% Conservative lead in 2015.
That's a trend which is also seen in the other midlands marginals.
I know NW Leics well. It centres on Coalville, and related pit villages. The demography has changed significantly, with a lot of new housing, and employment based on good distribution links via motorways and airport (East Mids airport has all night cargo flights so is ideal for distribution companies to deliver next day).
The way the demographics have gone means that the tories are not going to get in again in the forseeable.
The pro-Conservative demographic trends in Leicestershire NW are linked but opposite to the pro-Labour trends in Leicester.
But the places with pro-Conservative demographic trends receive less publicity because they are in 'drive past' areas to the urban based media.
Labour's problem is that they are increasingly associated with minority voting blocs:
City, public sector, non-white, young
whereas the Conservatives have the larger voting blocs:
Non-city, private sector, white, old
What is also interesting is that all 10 Leicestershire constituencies are now safe for either Labour or the Conservatives - big general election wins are going to be harder to achieve.
Yes. In 1983 the tories took Leicester South, and it was taken by the LDs briefly post Iraq war but no chance of that happening again.
It is going to be 7/3 in Leicestershire for the forseeable. This is middle England literally as well as socially. I cannot see a way back for Corbyn, but on my playing on Electoral Calculus Labour has to drop into the mid teens before theyvstart to lose the city seats. Quite possible of course as SLAB managed it!
@PolhomeEditor: Ed Miliband would have done better in 2015 if he'd agreed to a "progressive alliance" with the SNP, says @NicolaSturgeon. Well, it's a view.
Would have played straight into Crosby's hands. It might have pushed Labour's vote share in NE England further down. Progressive alliance, nice meaningless turn of phrase, but perhaps too toxic to work.
All the actual evidence says that "fear of SNP" was not an issue in the general election. There is not a single piece of analysis that suggests the voting share was effected overall. None.
A proper arrangement with the SNP would have let Labour claw back some of the green vote and delivered a number of marginals by opposing austerity instead of continuing with it. It would also have definitely gotten rid of Mundell so that's at least one less Tory.
The Tories won their majority because the Liberals were toxic, they targetted the Liberals and they beat the Liberals on the ground in the SW while Labour failed to grow their vote in marginals. It is surprising that this basic, evident and evidenced outcome isn't understood more.
Fear of a Labour-SNP coalition was absolutely an issue. The question is whether there is anything that can make it not a issue, other than independence.
No it wasn't. There is evidence, we have surveys and analysis which quite clearly concludes that it was not an issue** and not a single piece of evidence that it made a difference.
**This doesn't mean it did not change any votes but the evidence indicates that the attraction to the SNP balanced the fear of the SNP amongst voters meaning that no effective difference in the final result can b found.
I disagree. The SNP voters were the useful idiots that gave the Tories a majority, by their devastation of SLab and the dislike of the English and Welsh for a Scottish sectarian party holding sway over Britain, that's clear to me.
I wouldn't call the SNP voters idiots. The disaffection of English voters and the Conservative Government operate to further the SNP's agenda, I think.
On the company thing - it is very simple. Using a personal company is a common legal vehicle for reducing the amount of tax to be paid.
For example -
1) Paid as a contractor (personal company) £500 a day * 220 working days = £9000 a month take home
2) PAYE - £110,000 a yesr = £5750 take home
for half that
a) Contractor - £250 per day - £4550 take home
b) PAYE £55,000 - £3250 take home
Figures approx to about £50
This is why people do this.
Hardly Alan Salmond wasn't using a Personal Service company to do work that would be paid for under PAYE, he was moving from Self employment to limited company.. So the tax impact was actually minimal the only real difference was the publication of turnover...
I could bore people for hours on the reasons why people use PSC's. The first argument I would destroy is that PSC turnover would be the same as PAYE salary (it wouldn't be most examples show PAYE pay would be at most 60% of PSC turnover)...
Another tax advantage of working as a Limited Company over self employment or PAYE is that a ltd co can effectively be used as a pension, dodging both the limits and the Tax hike that Charles advocates.
This is done by leaving money in the company to accumulate, thereby dodging both income and dividend taxation. I suspect Mr Salmond has maxed out his pensions already so there is advantage here.
He can then pay out dividends in retirement or alternatively liquidate the company and pay tax at that point, or give it all to his own charitable foundation.
I am not suggesting that this is what he has in mind, but it is a very viable way for company directors to get around pension limits in ways that those on PAYE cannot.
Note: I am not a tax accountant!
And when a poor independent Scotland or merely an impoverished fiscally devolved Scotland moved to its inevitable high tax SNP/socialist regime then clever pontificating people like Salmond who always spout about how wonderful that would be can still avoid the worse excesses of their lies.
Not true. She has no legal authority to call a second referendum. Power is a rather different beast though.
pedant/
Well if she has the power to call a referendum, she has the legal authority to do so also.
The referendum itself would not be legally binding on anyone
/pedant
You're missing the point. She doesn't have the legal authority to call a referendum but then neither did Salmond. He still delivered one all the same and it was his political power that enabled it. Likewise, if Sturgeon is at the head of a sufficiently large protest demanding a referendum, the UK government will very probably agree for the same reason it did last time.
The ability to make things happen (or stop things happening) is the very definition of power and another election landslide would hand Sturgeon a lot more than just what the law gives her.
Not true. She has no legal authority to call a second referendum. Power is a rather different beast though.
pedant/
Well if she has the power to call a referendum, she has the legal authority to do so also.
The referendum itself would not be legally binding on anyone
/pedant
Why should anyone bother to vote in such a referendum if it was meaningless. The correct response for the NO side would be to refuse to campaign and sit at home rather than vote.
The ability to make things happen (or stop things happening) is the very definition of power and another election landslide would hand Sturgeon a lot more than just what the law gives her.
@PolhomeEditor: Ed Miliband would have done better in 2015 if he'd agreed to a "progressive alliance" with the SNP, says @NicolaSturgeon. Well, it's a view.
Would have played straight into Crosby's hands. It might have pushed Labour's vote share in NE England further down. Progressive alliance, nice meaningless turn of phrase, but perhaps too toxic to work.
All the actual evidence says that "fear of SNP" was not an issue in the general election. There is not a single piece of analysis that suggests the voting share was effected overall. None.
A proper arrangement with the SNP would have let Labour claw back some of the green vote and delivered a number of marginals by opposing austerity instead of continuing with it. It would also have definitely gotten rid of Mundell so that's at least one less Tory.
The Tories won their majority because the Liberals were toxic, they targetted the Liberals and they beat the Liberals on the ground in the SW while Labour failed to grow their vote in marginals. It is surprising that this basic, evident and evidenced outcome isn't understood more.
Fear of a Labour-SNP coalition was absolutely an issue. The question is whether there is anything that can make it not a issue, other than independence.
No it wasn't. There is evidence, we have surveys and analysis which quite clearly concludes that it was not an issue** and not a single piece of evidence that it made a difference.
**This doesn't mean it did not change any votes but the evidence indicates that the attraction to the SNP balanced the fear of the SNP amongst voters meaning that no effective difference in the final result can b found.
Do you have links to these analyses and surveys?
It's a very very counterintuitive conclusion. That doesn't mean it is wrong but I would want to look very closely at the methodology and reasoning behind such studies.
From memory there were a couple of polls which both indicated fear of SNP matched attraction to SNP, one was commissioned by Wings. I'll happily concede the evidence is limited.
However, the evidence that fear of SNP changed the result is NON EXISTENT.
I'll take limited evidence over non-existed evidence every day of the week.
Another tax advantage of working as a Limited Company over self employment or PAYE is that a ltd co can effectively be used as a pension, dodging both the limits and the Tax hike that Charles advocates.
This is done by leaving money in the company to accumulate, thereby dodging both income and dividend taxation. I suspect Mr Salmond has maxed out his pensions already so there is advantage here.
He can then pay out dividends in retirement or alternatively liquidate the company and pay tax at that point, or give it all to his own charitable foundation.
I am not suggesting that this is what he has in mind, but it is a very viable way for company directors to get around pension limits in ways that those on PAYE cannot.
Note: I am not a tax accountant!
Or he could have more money than he could ever need and prefers to slip £400 to an accountant to do his books than spend a couple of weekends filling in Self Assessment forms.
Of course Dair, of course.
'I claim legitimate expenses for an expensive golfing jolly, you trough at Westminster'
'I run my lucrative income through a service company, you dodge tax'
On topic, electoral reform is not the same as political reform.
Our political system currently sees a general election trying to do three things:
(1) Elect a prime minister and a government by the voters without allowing parties to stitch up the result without reference to the voters (2) Elect a legislature that represents the political balance of the country (3) Elect a super social worker ("I must write to my MP about that") for every area of the country - party is irrelevant to this.
At the moment it does (3) very well, (1) acceptably and fails miserably at (2).
The problem is that any attempt to improve (2) will damage one of the others - moving to multi-member constituencies damages (3) whilst direct proportionality makes (1) fail completely.
No single system can satisfy all three requirements. So unless the election of the executive is separated from the election of the legislature any electoral reform is at best just tinkering around the edges.
There might be a thread header in this if anyone's interested...!
Another tax advantage of working as a Limited Company over self employment or PAYE is that a ltd co can effectively be used as a pension, dodging both the limits and the Tax hike that Charles advocates.
This is done by leaving money in the company to accumulate, thereby dodging both income and dividend taxation. I suspect Mr Salmond has maxed out his pensions already so there is advantage here.
He can then pay out dividends in retirement or alternatively liquidate the company and pay tax at that point, or give it all to his own charitable foundation.
I am not suggesting that this is what he has in mind, but it is a very viable way for company directors to get around pension limits in ways that those on PAYE cannot.
Note: I am not a tax accountant!
Or he could have more money than he could ever need and prefers to slip £400 to an accountant to do his books than spend a couple of weekends filling in Self Assessment forms.
I have no idea why Salmond has done this, my contribution was on the pensions issue rather than Scotland.
Having your own company allows a lot more flexibility in how you pay tax, if at all, as I am sure Charles knows!
Comments
A proper arrangement with the SNP would have let Labour claw back some of the green vote and delivered a number of marginals by opposing austerity instead of continuing with it. It would also have definitely gotten rid of Mundell so that's at least one less Tory.
The Tories won their majority because the Liberals were toxic, they targetted the Liberals and they beat the Liberals on the ground in the SW while Labour failed to grow their vote in marginals. It is surprising that this basic, evident and evidenced outcome isn't understood more.
To me, these problems can only be tackled by changing culture; we would be a much more prosperous society if more British people had the same attitude to work and education as, say, Ugandan Asians. How you do that I don't know, but more public spending is not the answer.
http://metro.co.uk/2015/05/09/voter-draws-massive-penis-on-ballot-paper-gets-counted-and-helps-elect-tory-mp-5188845/
Saving incentives should be targeted more effectively at the low paid, but the change should not be used as an excuse to raise taxes.
I just don't see why they should get 40% relief on the greater amount of saving they can make.
While the Union can offer nothing positive to Scotlands future, then Independence is the only rational, logical outcome for Scotland.
Poor old Jezza, his spin team won't like that photo.
It's the tax deferral that has value.
Leicester Lab 3 Con 0
Leicestershire Con 7 Lab 0
Labour are increasingly a city party and there aren't enough cities for Labour to win an election.
The most revealing constituency in Leicestershire is Leicestershire NW - a 25% Labour lead in 1997 changing to a 22% Conservative lead in 2015.
That's a trend which is also seen in the other midlands marginals.
Besides, would a deferral have prevented Labour MPs from lending Corbyn votes? Would it have changed the electoral process? Would Burnham, Cooper or Kendall have been any more impressive? Would someone else have stood? Would Corbyn have failed to galvanise the far left 'supporters'? The only possible question I can see a 'no' to there is that there might have been a different line-up but would that have mattered? Corbyn's victory was overwhelming and a positive decision by the voters rather than a negative stop-X vote.
You can blame Miliband for many things - above all the stupid election rules - but I don't think that his immediate resignation was one of them.
Interesting that you see a tax increase as ending a handout. Very Corbyn!
Nicola Sturgeon: #Indyref "highly likely" if UK votes for Brexit & Scotland votes to stay in http://bbc.in/1OpKNRK
Also, AV isn't in any sense a PR system, as implied in the article.
For example -
1) Paid as a contractor (personal company) £500 a day * 220 working days = £9000 a month take home
2) PAYE - £110,000 a yesr = £5750 take home
for half that
a) Contractor - £250 per day - £4550 take home
b) PAYE £55,000 - £3250 take home
Figures approx to about £50
This is why people do this.
Obviously, they've not got everything right but then no government does. But their change in thinking, strategy and style couldn't have been done much better, all the while keeping their core on board.
The way the demographics have gone means that the tories are not going to get in again in the forseeable.
Hence, Northern Ireland where sectarian parties are entrenched by FPTP the turnout is the lowest of anywhere in the UK.
What a difference the choice of system makes - UKIP could have had either 1 or 80 MPs depending on it. As ever with discussion of PR between and within the parties of the left/centre - which system is always one of the huge stumbling blocks.
As used to be a massive proponent of PR but increasingly I now worry about the potential for the far Right to gain seats if we switched. People have always said there would be a threshold, but that hasn't stopped the far right in other countries e.g. Hungary.
Classification of EU regions for cohesion & competitiveness... https://t.co/4EZ95kYFt1 https://t.co/czmUrajGSO
In principle it would be OK to get rid of tax relief on pensions, but not tax the resulting pension, but who would trust a future government to go back on this promise and to tax after all? It would require complex grandfathering arrangements for decades too.
At least with ISAs we can cash out if the government plans to do that, with a pension we cannot.
@foxinsox - higher rate tax on max pensions pot
Not really. The current private sector maximum (ie before tax incentives are removed) is a £million (think public sector is fiddled with dodgy maths so it's more- but let's not go there). A million quid will buy you about £30k index linked at 65 with spouse provision.
Now if ever we get out of our 0.5% interest death spiral and Govt bond yields one day rise (please!!!) that £30k may rise a bit, but right now that's where we are.
(Higher interest rates would also eliminate most DB pension deficits at a stroke removing a vast burden from industry and help quell BTL which I am convinced is in turn largely a function of low interest rates, as people seek some sort of secure old age return which isn't available at present due to low interest rates, demographics, and Govts - especially the heinous Brown - buggering about with pensions).
It makes sense and is far easier where you have earnings on top of a salary to funnel them through a company to make the accounting for your tax far more straightforward while still taking the entire income (and incurring full tax) within the same financial period.
In any case, the electorate of Gordon were asked to decide about Salmond's financial arrangements a few weeks after this story broke and they decided that they were perfectly acceptable, more than doubling the previous SNP vote and taking the party from third to winning the seat.
The problem with all this tinkering is that it continues to increase the difference between the pension provisions in the private and public sectors.
As a result of far sighted legislation from both parties in the sixties and early seventies, the UK once had the best pension provision of any country on the planet and most of it was funded. Then the politicians, starting with Lawson, started tinkering in order to fund their pet projects and/or do favours for their client groups. Osborne's latest set of ideas is just another twist in that downward spiral, another example of stealing from today and lumping the costs onto future generations. Pensions are a long term multi-generational issue but our current breed of politicians seem only capable of thinking as far ahead as the next general election.
The guy with the ZZ Top beard clearly spends a lot of money on it. He seems a bit more human than the brainwashed others. http://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-jihadis-next-door
Changing culture is indeed key. The quality of education given in our schools in poorer areas remains a disgrace and Gove's reforms are only the start, along with the Lib Dem's pupil premium. Where are Labour's ideas?
Is someone channelling emanations from Jacks ARSE?
Time once again to share the eternal verity: Tony Blair on the snare and delusion of electoral reform, 1987 https://t.co/Kw2ZcuFN3V
**This doesn't mean it did not change any votes but the evidence indicates that the attraction to the SNP balanced the fear of the SNP amongst voters meaning that no effective difference in the final result can b found.
Not complaining
Our problem is high tax rates. The higher the tax rate and the more is spent on welfare then the less incentive to save and more to rely on the state which puts pressure on welfare spending and incentivises higher taxes which...
I could bore people for hours on the reasons why people use PSC's. The first argument I would destroy is that PSC turnover would be the same as PAYE salary (it wouldn't be most examples show PAYE pay would be at most 60% of PSC turnover)...
[*] I could run an analysis but I haven't got a round tuit.
I don't know whether Welsh Labour is in as hollow a state as Scottish Labour was ten years ago; what is clear is that Plaid is no SNP.
The election next year stands to be very interesting. I doubt Labour will retain their majority* but can't see anyone else forming a government and they will presumably have to rely on Plaid support. If Plaid are canny, they'll turn down a formal deal and demand vote-by-vote concessions. I can't see Labour winning much support elsewhere though if Plaid abstain then the Lib Dems might become important if Con+UKIP is marginally larger than Lab, which is possible. However I suspect that the small number of top-up seats will count against UKIP and for Labour.
* strictly speaking, 30/60 isn't a majority but it's as near as damn it.
Well, except that I suppose you could consider FPTP vaguely proportional and AV is generally about as proportional as that.
But the places with pro-Conservative demographic trends receive less publicity because they are in 'drive past' areas to the urban based media.
Labour's problem is that they are increasingly associated with minority voting blocs:
City, public sector, non-white, young
whereas the Conservatives have the larger voting blocs:
Non-city, private sector, white, old
What is also interesting is that all 10 Leicestershire constituencies are now safe for either Labour or the Conservatives - big general election wins are going to be harder to achieve.
If you win ever constituency, you need roughly 55% on the list to get an extra list MSP.
If you win no constituency, you need roughly 6% on the list to get a first MSP.
D'Hondt also make it even more complex as you don't lose absolute numbers from the list based on number of constituencies, it is a proportional devaluation of your list vote.
It is not completely proportional mainly because there are multiple regions (whereas London is a single region so is much closer to absolute proportionality). And there is a slight difference in the make up of a couple of the regions, two regions have ten constituencies and one has eight but all return 7 list MSPs.
Also there is a big difference to Wales and London as the List to Seat ratio is much closer to parity in Scotland.
You might not want to believe this but all the anti-Englishness that SLAB and the SNP have encouraged had an effect in England in 2015.
He considered Northern UK, but the local Labour politicians (ex industrial area) made it clear they *didn't want* development. So the factory went to Malaysia.
From the Treasury Civil Servants' point of view, complexities are what they thrive on, the more complex the better - months of work needing an ever growing number of people to monitor, consider, draft, report back, new committees to be formed and even, nirvana, inter-departmental working groups. And of course none of it affects them as they are all on PAYE with defined benefit pensions.
Well if she has the power to call a referendum, she has the legal authority to do so also.
The referendum itself would not be legally binding on anyone
/pedant
This is done by leaving money in the company to accumulate, thereby dodging both income and dividend taxation. I suspect Mr Salmond has maxed out his pensions already so there is advantage here.
He can then pay out dividends in retirement or alternatively liquidate the company and pay tax at that point, or give it all to his own charitable foundation.
I am not suggesting that this is what he has in mind, but it is a very viable way for company directors to get around pension limits in ways that those on PAYE cannot.
Note: I am not a tax accountant!
Those attracted to the SNP (in Scotland, where they were standing) voted for the SNP, costing Labour seats.
Those in fear of the SNP (in England) did not vote for the SNP, or Labour, costing Labour seats.
Two forces acting in the same direction do not balance each other out...
It's a very very counterintuitive conclusion. That doesn't mean it is wrong but I would want to look very closely at the methodology and reasoning behind such studies.
Increased government debt every year to over 11% more than he said he would
Increased the current account deficit to record levels
Increased the imbalances in the economy even more towards wealth consumption
Presided over falling real wages
Presided over the highest budget and current account deficits in the G7
Presided over the savings rate falling to a record low
Presided over falling home ownership
Proved himself wrong time and time again - borrowing, 'March of the Makers', export drives
Created pointless QUANGOs
Taken no action against public sector fatcats as he promised he would
With only two errors.
Labour vs SNP in Scotland makes no difference in terms of the overall result if they are in an arrangement.
The attraction to the SNP in England and Wales has been demonstrated to be equivalent to the fear of the SNP making no difference in terms of the overall result.
But apart from that, great post Scotty, really hit the nail on the thumb.
It is going to be 7/3 in Leicestershire for the forseeable. This is middle England literally as well as socially. I cannot see a way back for Corbyn, but on my playing on Electoral Calculus Labour has to drop into the mid teens before theyvstart to lose the city seats. Quite possible of course as SLAB managed it!
The ability to make things happen (or stop things happening) is the very definition of power and another election landslide would hand Sturgeon a lot more than just what the law gives her.
In your own time...
However, the evidence that fear of SNP changed the result is NON EXISTENT.
I'll take limited evidence over non-existed evidence every day of the week.
'I claim legitimate expenses for an expensive golfing jolly, you trough at Westminster'
'I run my lucrative income through a service company, you dodge tax'
Our political system currently sees a general election trying to do three things:
(1) Elect a prime minister and a government by the voters without allowing parties to stitch up the result without reference to the voters
(2) Elect a legislature that represents the political balance of the country
(3) Elect a super social worker ("I must write to my MP about that") for every area of the country - party is irrelevant to this.
At the moment it does (3) very well, (1) acceptably and fails miserably at (2).
The problem is that any attempt to improve (2) will damage one of the others - moving to multi-member constituencies damages (3) whilst direct proportionality makes (1) fail completely.
No single system can satisfy all three requirements. So unless the election of the executive is separated from the election of the legislature any electoral reform is at best just tinkering around the edges.
There might be a thread header in this if anyone's interested...!
But, but, but, Wings said...
Please tell me he was your source for "Scotland can't flood"
Having your own company allows a lot more flexibility in how you pay tax, if at all, as I am sure Charles knows!