"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?
Quite.
No doubt this is precisely what Osborne has tactically (and narrowly) calculated. However, taking your core supporters for granted, and making policy at their expense, is not healthy for the future of the party. Particularly if you are insufferably patronising and arrogant about it, using phrases like "no-where else to got".
Its natural supporters will find somewhere to go if that's the attitude of the governing party.
It is precisely why Conservative membership is now so low, at sub 100k. And it's also how New Labour became so hollowed out post Blair.
What will I do as a centre-right voter if Osborne takes me for granted?
Resign my membership, stop donating and stop campaigning. And that's a start.
I would also either abstain or vote UKIP. Neither is healthy for the Conservatives.
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.
A statement like that is all the better for proof.
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?
There were five in 2011. Three is probably their as good as they can aim for at the moment though and a wipe-out can't be ruled out.
Even so, if the figures do end up something like Lab 26, Con 15, Plaid 8, UKIP 8, LD 3 then the Lib Dems' vote could be critical on votes where Plaid abstained.
"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
I agree with that entirely.
My point was obscured (with apologies) as I attempted to reply to "Who else are they going to vote for?" - it's not a forced choice, they could well just stay at home .... whilst also adding my personal preference in brackets to proactively write "None of the above".
If you take someone for granted and communicate you don't give a shit about their vote, as you expect them to vote for you anyway, the voters hearing that message will make damn sure they do anything but vote for you.
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?
There were five in 2011. Three is probably their as good as they can aim for at the moment though and a wipe-out can't be ruled out.
Even so, if the figures do end up something like Lab 26, Con 15, Plaid 8, UKIP 8, LD 3 then the Lib Dems' vote could be critical on votes where Plaid abstained.
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.
That's true; however what Salmond did (and had to do) was reach an agreement with HMG that enabled the referendum. Part of that deal was that the referendum would settle the matter. Trying to re-open the question would show that HMG couldn't trust the Scottish Government to hold to an agreement, and hence a new agreement would not be reached.
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
A very good post, Mr. Richard. If you don't mind I shall save it and perhaps bring it out (with due acknowledgements, of course) every time someone starts telling us how brilliant Osborne is.
There are I am afraid a lot of ignorant unthinking incoherent people of all stripes out there. Take a look at how plain stupid Corbyn is and how quite dim he is. And he is at the brighter end!
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'm fairly certain that you can pay an accountant to do your Self Assessment form for you if you want, though it's been a few years since I had to fill one in.
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)
No, it's not fair. I understand nothing in life is "fair" but this is hitting aspirational hard-working voters straight in their pocket. And they are not wealthy.
I was a basic-rate taxpayer for the first seven years of my career. Through sheer hard work and risk-taking, I was then fortunate enough to earn a promotion in a new firm paying me £54k pa.
The Employer paid 5% of that salary in. I paid a further 5%. The contributions amount to £5.4k pa. That's way, way below the £40k annual limit that currently exists. And I will never hit the lifetime limit.
I can fully understand why the Government shouldn't provide full tax relief to someone earning £150k pa and paying 45% top rate tax on their pension pot.
But we have a pensions savings crisis. There are hundreds of thousands of aspirational Conservative voters doing their damn best to pull the country out of recession (and millions more who wish to be) - who have no landed wealth, or real assets - and who are also paying high commuting costs and servicing large mortgages, who want nothing more than to save a little for their old age.
Pensions are tinkered with year after year after year. It's hard enough to make a case for saving as it is. What sort of message does the government send out by robbing them of 10% annual tax relief (assuming we move to 30% relief pa) on such small contributions?
I may as well just give up and rely on the State in my old age, in which case we'll all be paying more.
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.
People in Islington getting excited about a Labour-SNP coalition didn't help Labour.
People being frightened of a Labour-SNP coalition in Morley or Telford or Brecon did help the Conservatives:
' Former Lib Dem MP for Brecon and Radnorshire, Roger Williams, says voters were "pushed" into voting for the Conservatives because they were afraid of the influence of the SNP.
"I do believe it was the fear that the people of Brecon and Radnorshire had, and right across Wales as well, that the Scottish National Party would have a big influence of the governance in the UK," Mr Williams aid.
"They were really afraid of that and were pushed into voting Conservative to have a Conservative majority government." '
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
There's a lot of truth in what you say. The problem is this:
The UK doesn't have a problem with its level of exports; it has a problem with its level of consumption. The table below shows consumer spending as a percent of GDP.
Greece 70.4 United Kingdom 64.7 Italy 61.2 Spain 58.3 Canada 55.8 France 55.5 Australia 55.4 Finland 55.0 Germany 54.6 Denmark 48.6
The good news is that we're better than Greece!
We spend too much. But any government that took policies to increase savings rates, would see riots. We have found ourselves in a situation where doing the right thing would be political suicide.
And one other thing: the countries that sorted out their current account issues by clamping down on consumption (Spain, Italy, Portugal), did so at the cost of horrendous recessions. We had a much milder recession because we kept consumer spending up. But, of course, now our imbalances are worse than ever.
' Former Lib Dem MP for Brecon and Radnorshire, Roger Williams, says voters were "pushed" into voting for the Conservatives because they were afraid of the influence of the SNP.
How would a sitting MP canvassing on the ground possibly know more about voters in their constituency than Wings?
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
"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.
Quite.
I fully expect Osborne to pull something out of the hat with raising the 40p threshold from £40k to £50k a bit faster to offset some of the effect.
But whereas before the election I expected a small tax cut, it's now clear I'll be very lucky to break even.
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.
........
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.
Funny you should mention it, I was having a drink in a pub in Ashby-de-la-Zouch yesterday. The constituency used to be part of the Bosworth constituency before 1983 which was held by Woodrow Wyatt between 1959 and 1970.
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.
That's true; however what Salmond did (and had to do) was reach an agreement with HMG that enabled the referendum. Part of that deal was that the referendum would settle the matter. Trying to re-open the question would show that HMG couldn't trust the Scottish Government to hold to an agreement, and hence a new agreement would not be reached.
An established principle of the British electoral system is that a government cannot be held by the decisions of its predecessors.
As such, the UK government is no longer bound by the Edinburgh Agreement and from May 2016, the Scottish government will no longer be bound by the Edinburgh Agreement.
But it's a pointless, pedantic argument, which you know. If the SNP build a mandate for another referendum, it will happen and no amount of Loyalist whining will stop it.
Nicola Sturgeon has finally said something I agree with, which is that holding the EU referendum in June wouldn't be acceptable since you'd be making voters go to the polls twice in a few weeks. When that happened in 1999 the turnout was 25%.
Camerons governments must be catching up Quick in the numbers coming here with the open door new labour governments.
This explains it:
"Chancellor George Osborne, speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, said that the urgency of Europe’s refugee crisis was an incentive for Britain’s 27 EU partners to conclude a swift renegotiation agreement that would allow the government to propose a Yes vote in the up-coming referendum."
' Former Lib Dem MP for Brecon and Radnorshire, Roger Williams, says voters were "pushed" into voting for the Conservatives because they were afraid of the influence of the SNP.
How would a sitting MP canvassing on the ground possibly know more about voters in their constituency than Wings?
That's just absurd...
To be fair, Wings has excellent ground level information on the Tory campaign in the English West Country!
Nicola Sturgeon has finally said something I agree with, which is that holding the EU referendum in June wouldn't be acceptable since you'd be making voters go to the polls twice in a few weeks. When that happened in 1999 the turnout was 25%.
I believe Cameron's plan is to announce the referendum one Monday morning, and have the poll Thursday of the same week. He'd hoped to have it just hours after announcing it, but was persuaded out of it.
Please tell me he was your source for "Scotland can't flood"
The problem is that I never said Scotland can't flood.
Only you seem to claim that, bizarrely.
You bragged about Scotland's superior water management and then you came a delicious cropper. Much like your hero Eck with his boasting about Scottish banks and then his expert oil economist's predictions for the price of oil. We're allowed to laugh.
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.
That's true; however what Salmond did (and had to do) was reach an agreement with HMG that enabled the referendum. Part of that deal was that the referendum would settle the matter. Trying to re-open the question would show that HMG couldn't trust the Scottish Government to hold to an agreement, and hence a new agreement would not be reached.
True, and that's an obstacle she'd need to navigate round. All the same, if there really was strong support for a second referendum I don't see how the UK government could reasonably reject the call.
the UK government is no longer bound by the Edinburgh Agreement and from May 2016, the Scottish government will no longer be bound by the Edinburgh Agreement.
Nonsense. The agreement is quite clear. A new Scottish government may want to renege on it, but will be treated by HMG with the seriousness they deserve.
Even Pete Wishart admits it: the separatists lost decisively and the matter is closed. Why can't you?
"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.
Quite.
I fully expect Osborne to pull something out of the hat with raising the 40p threshold from £40k to £50k a bit faster to offset some of the effect.
But whereas before the election I expected a small tax cut, it's now clear I'll be very lucky to break even.
Why would anyone be expecting tax cuts while we continue to run a sizeable deficit?
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.
That's true; however what Salmond did (and had to do) was reach an agreement with HMG that enabled the referendum. Part of that deal was that the referendum would settle the matter. Trying to re-open the question would show that HMG couldn't trust the Scottish Government to hold to an agreement, and hence a new agreement would not be reached.
True, and that's an obstacle she'd need to navigate round. All the same, if there really was strong support for a second referendum I don't see how the UK government could reasonably reject the call.
"The matter was decisively settled in September 2014. That the separatists are trying to challenge that decision show that they would not accept the result of any second referendum were it to go against them again, and as such holding a second referendum would merely be a waste of time and money".
Even Pete Wishart admits it: the separatists lost decisively and the matter is closed. Why can't you?
Give it a day. The MP for Zoomer North and Runrig isn't floating a line that hasn't been sanctioned all the way to the top. The Zoomers will fall in line quickly enough.
' Former Lib Dem MP for Brecon and Radnorshire, Roger Williams, says voters were "pushed" into voting for the Conservatives because they were afraid of the influence of the SNP.
How would a sitting MP canvassing on the ground possibly know more about voters in their constituency than Wings?
That's just absurd...
Wings don't conduct polls, they commission polls from Panelbase, usually in conjunction with the Sunday Times.
Unless you're claiming that Panelbase will offer "tailored" results in which case, you might want to consider the claim before a letter arrives from Mssrs Sue, Grabbit and Runne.
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'm fairly certain that you can pay an accountant to do your Self Assessment form for you if you want, though it's been a few years since I had to fill one in.
Yes, you can pay an accountant to do your self-assessment form.
Nicola Sturgeon has finally said something I agree with, which is that holding the EU referendum in June wouldn't be acceptable since you'd be making voters go to the polls twice in a few weeks. When that happened in 1999 the turnout was 25%.
I believe Cameron's plan is to announce the referendum one Monday morning, and have the poll Thursday of the same week. He'd hoped to have it just hours after announcing it, but was persuaded out of it.
No. All the ex pats have to be allowed time to get their postal votes in. Given the sainted Nicola's assertion I think that the ex pat Scottish votes (in England as well as abroad) should be counted separately.
There we have it. You need to understand that to the vast majority of people in the country you are incredibly well paid.
I earn above the average income, yes. I've worked bloody hard for it too, and my work benefits the whole economy: I build and manage national infrastructure projects.
Have you tried to live on £54k pa in the south-east too, paying £5k a year commuting costs, a heavy mortgage for an average semi with two bedrooms and serving a five-figure student loan?
I have no landed wealth, inherited wealth or real assets except a mortgage: I earned a very average salary for years.
This is a fundamentally socialist argument: that those on a decent salary are very lucky, rather well-off and can be taxed be at the Government's discretion to fund its coffers whenever its a bit short, and should be bloody thankful for it.
There's no limit to when that argument can be deployed either, as you can always play the "well paid" line.
What you're really talking about is inequality of income, redistribution and levelling to aim to engender equality. The Conservatives used to believe in equality of opportunity, encouraging aspiration and backing the people who work hard to make the country's economy tick.
Now we're going for taxing the income of the middle-class to pay for extra spending, where the rich aren't affected and those on or below average income gratefully receive a few little perks from their munificent Government. Just like under Gordon Brown.
' Former Lib Dem MP for Brecon and Radnorshire, Roger Williams, says voters were "pushed" into voting for the Conservatives because they were afraid of the influence of the SNP.
How would a sitting MP canvassing on the ground possibly know more about voters in their constituency than Wings?
That's just absurd...
Wings don't conduct polls, they commission polls from Panelbase, usually in conjunction with the Sunday Times.
Unless you're claiming that Panelbase will offer "tailored" results in which case, you might want to consider the claim before a letter arrives from Mssrs Sue, Grabbit and Runne.
There we have it. You need to understand that to the vast majority of people in the country you are incredibly well paid.
Immensely well paid even... You move to the north of England and remove public sector largess management salaries and doctors, very very few will be on that kind of money
"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.
Quite.
I fully expect Osborne to pull something out of the hat with raising the 40p threshold from £40k to £50k a bit faster to offset some of the effect.
But whereas before the election I expected a small tax cut, it's now clear I'll be very lucky to break even.
Bit of a contrast to how Osborne changed his mind over public sector fatcats:
You bragged about Scotland's superior water management and then you came a delicious cropper.
No, I pointed out that flood prevention does not happen by building huge defences which appears to be the UK government's "solution" for England and which clearly has a very poor track record and that may be related to privatisation.
In the post where I suggested this, I actually stated "floods still happen in Scotland".
But don't let facts get in the way of another of your rants.
"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.
Quite.
I fully expect Osborne to pull something out of the hat with raising the 40p threshold from £40k to £50k a bit faster to offset some of the effect.
But whereas before the election I expected a small tax cut, it's now clear I'll be very lucky to break even.
Why would anyone be expecting tax cuts while we continue to run a sizeable deficit?
The raising of the 40p threshold was in the manifesto. Tax cuts were delivered through a rise in the threshold to £10k during the last parliament.
I expect Osborne to deliver to his promises to cut welfare spending and departmental budgets further.
"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.
Quite.
I fully expect Osborne to pull something out of the hat with raising the 40p threshold from £40k to £50k a bit faster to offset some of the effect.
But whereas before the election I expected a small tax cut, it's now clear I'll be very lucky to break even.
Why would anyone be expecting tax cuts while we continue to run a sizeable deficit?
The raising of the 40p threshold was in the manifesto. Tax cuts were delivered through a rise in the threshold to £10k during the last parliament.
I expect Osborne to deliver to his promises to cut welfare spending and departmental budgets further.
The manifesto commitments will be met, I expect. And taxes will rise overall, even as there are spending cuts. I'm not aware that the government has abandoned the 20:80 ratio of tax rises to spending cuts that operated in the last Parliament when reducing the deficit.
The endless post-mortem on the 2015 GE is now beyond tedious. They have just covered it again on Sunday Politics BBC North West. It's as though they want to wake up and find it has all been a gigantic mistake and Labour really did win. THEY DIDN'T.
No, it's not fair. I understand nothing in life is "fair" but this is hitting aspirational hard-working voters straight in their pocket. And they are not wealthy.
I was a basic-rate taxpayer for the first seven years of my career. Through sheer hard work and risk-taking, I was then fortunate enough to earn a promotion in a new firm paying me £54k pa.
The Employer paid 5% of that salary in. I paid a further 5%. The contributions amount to £5.4k pa. That's way, way below the £40k annual limit that currently exists. And I will never hit the lifetime limit.
I can fully understand why the Government shouldn't provide full tax relief to someone earning £150k pa and paying 45% top rate tax on their pension pot.
But we have a pensions savings crisis. There are hundreds of thousands of aspirational Conservative voters doing their damn best to pull the country out of recession (and millions more who wish to be) - who have no landed wealth, or real assets - and who are also paying high commuting costs and servicing large mortgages, who want nothing more than to save a little for their old age.
Pensions are tinkered with year after year after year. It's hard enough to make a case for saving as it is. What sort of message does the government send out by robbing them of 10% annual tax relief (assuming we move to 30% relief pa) on such small contributions?
I may as well just give up and rely on the State in my old age, in which case we'll all be paying more.
"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.
Quite.
I fully expect Osborne to pull something out of the hat with raising the 40p threshold from £40k to £50k a bit faster to offset some of the effect.
But whereas before the election I expected a small tax cut, it's now clear I'll be very lucky to break even.
Bit of a contrast to how Osborne changed his mind over public sector fatcats:
I am absolutely furious about this. I can't recall being so angry about any economic policy this government has launched since 2010.
And it's not just the policy. It's the brazen and arrogant way Osborne is reported to be doing it because he calculates his voter base have "nowhere else to go".
Would you have ever caught Thatcher acting like that?
Everything I read (and hear) about Osborne is validated by his actions. It's a real omen for what's to follow if this total arse ever gets his grubby hands on the levers of No.10.
There we have it. You need to understand that to the vast majority of people in the country you are incredibly well paid.
Immensely well paid even... You move to the north of England and remove public sector largess management salaries and doctors, very very few will be on that kind of money
Oh pish. All the big northern cities have loads of jobs paying that kind of money, and the more rural areas don't vote Tory in huge numbers out of habit.
If you take someone for granted and communicate you don't give a shit about their vote, as you expect them to vote for you anyway, the voters hearing that message will make damn sure they do anything but vote for you.
Spot on, Mr. Royale, but who are people who are "natural" conservative voters going to turn out for. One could abstain or vote for a minor party but if too many people do that then there is the danger that Labour might get in and A Labour Party led by Corbyn at that. Who is going to want to risk that disaster?
To an extent we already saw such voting at the last GE when UKIP supporters on the day said, "Sorry, Nige, but the risk of Miliband and Salmond was too much, I had to vote Conservative".
That, I think is the tragedy for everyone of Labour going down the path that it has. It has robbed the majority of an alternative and allowed Cameron and Osborne a free rein.
No, it's not fair. I understand nothing in life is "fair" but this is hitting aspirational hard-working voters straight in their pocket. And they are not wealthy.
I was a basic-rate taxpayer for the first seven years of my career. Through sheer hard work and risk-taking, I was then fortunate enough to earn a promotion in a new firm paying me £54k pa.
The Employer paid 5% of that salary in. I paid a further 5%. The contributions amount to £5.4k pa. That's way, way below the £40k annual limit that currently exists. And I will never hit the lifetime limit.
I can fully understand why the Government shouldn't provide full tax relief to someone earning £150k pa and paying 45% top rate tax on their pension pot.
But we have a pensions savings crisis. There are hundreds of thousands of aspirational Conservative voters doing their damn best to pull the country out of recession (and millions more who wish to be) - who have no landed wealth, or real assets - and who are also paying high commuting costs and servicing large mortgages, who want nothing more than to save a little for their old age.
Pensions are tinkered with year after year after year. It's hard enough to make a case for saving as it is. What sort of message does the government send out by robbing them of 10% annual tax relief (assuming we move to 30% relief pa) on such small contributions?
I may as well just give up and rely on the State in my old age, in which case we'll all be paying more.
Excellent and eloquent post.
You should run for office
Thank you kindly.
With apologies, I must duck out now. Sunday lunch beckons. My wife is pulling me away..
Nicola Sturgeon has finally said something I agree with, which is that holding the EU referendum in June wouldn't be acceptable since you'd be making voters go to the polls twice in a few weeks. When that happened in 1999 the turnout was 25%.
I believe Cameron's plan is to announce the referendum one Monday morning, and have the poll Thursday of the same week. He'd hoped to have it just hours after announcing it, but was persuaded out of it.
There we have it. You need to understand that to the vast majority of people in the country you are incredibly well paid.
I earn above the average income, yes. I've worked bloody hard for it too, and my work benefits the whole economy: I build and manage national infrastructure projects.
Have you tried to live on £54k pa in the south-east too, paying £5k a year commuting costs, a heavy mortgage for an average semi with two bedrooms and serving a five-figure student loan?
I live on around £30k in London. Commuting is about £150 per month depending on how many evening shifts I do. I'm not crazy enough to add a two hour commute on to my often long days. We're about to move into a three bedroom house. I've "paid off" my student "loan".
I have no landed wealth, inherited wealth or real assets except a mortgage: I earned a very average salary for years.
This is a fundamentally socialist argument: that those on a decent salary are very lucky, rather well-off and can be taxed be at the Government's discretion to fund its coffers whenever its a bit short, and should be bloody thankful for it.
There's no limit to when that argument can be deployed either, as you can always play the "well paid" line.
What you're really talking about is inequality of income, redistribution and levelling to aim to engender equality. The Conservatives used to believe in equality of opportunity, encouraging aspiration and backing the people who work hard to make the country's economy tick.
Now we're going for taxing the income of the middle-class to pay for extra spending, where the rich aren't affected and those on or below average income gratefully receive a few little perks from their munificent Government. Just like under Gordon Brown.
Perhaps you should join the Labour Party.
Have you seen my screen name?
But my point is not about what the government should or shouldn't do - it's about how the vast majority of people in the country see you - very well paid albeit not to the point of incomprehensibility (and me - reasonably well paid). Given that the mantra of the Cameron-Osborne administrations has been "we're all in this together", why should people like you be excluded?
Casino; I am with you, but even under the Blessed Margaret some taxes were raised, and MIRAS was scrapped which many Tories would have seen in the same terms as you see this reform.
Like you, I expect to be a 'not-Osborne' voter in the leadership election.
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
There's a lot of truth in what you say. The problem is this:
The UK doesn't have a problem with its level of exports; it has a problem with its level of consumption. The table below shows consumer spending as a percent of GDP.
Greece 70.4 United Kingdom 64.7 Italy 61.2 Spain 58.3 Canada 55.8 France 55.5 Australia 55.4 Finland 55.0 Germany 54.6 Denmark 48.6
The good news is that we're better than Greece!
We spend too much. But any government that took policies to increase savings rates, would see riots. We have found ourselves in a situation where doing the right thing would be political suicide.
And one other thing: the countries that sorted out their current account issues by clamping down on consumption (Spain, Italy, Portugal), did so at the cost of horrendous recessions. We had a much milder recession because we kept consumer spending up. But, of course, now our imbalances are worse than ever.
I agree.
Why Osborne announced his trillion pound export target is beyond me - a trip round anyone shopping centre will show where the trade deficit comes from.
Another problem is that after all the 'austerity' rhetoric people now think we're entitled to more spending and living standards rising again whereas the real pain hasn't yet been applied.
If you take someone for granted and communicate you don't give a shit about their vote, as you expect them to vote for you anyway, the voters hearing that message will make damn sure they do anything but vote for you.
Spot on, Mr. Royale, but who are people who are "natural" conservative voters going to turn out for. One could abstain or vote for a minor party but if too many people do that then there is the danger that Labour might get in and A Labour Party led by Corbyn at that. Who is going to want to risk that disaster?
To an extent we already saw such voting at the last GE when UKIP supporters on the day said, "Sorry, Nige, but the risk of Miliband and Salmond was too much, I had to vote Conservative".
That, I think is the tragedy for everyone of Labour going down the path that it has. It has robbed the majority of an alternative and allowed Cameron and Osborne a free rein.
Final thought.. although I'd be tempted for vote for whatever annoyed Osborne the most - Labour - in reality, it would be UKIP. I'd also withdraw and funding, activism or support for the election of Conservatives.
He has to understand there are consequences.
In the longer-term, I'd become a full-blooded supporter of voting reform.
"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.
Quite.
I fully expect Osborne to pull something out of the hat with raising the 40p threshold from £40k to £50k a bit faster to offset some of the effect.
But whereas before the election I expected a small tax cut, it's now clear I'll be very lucky to break even.
Bit of a contrast to how Osborne changed his mind over public sector fatcats:
It means the PVV needs to find partners with 22% of the vote. The Netherlands is totally proportional, with 150 seats. Which means that if you can attract 0.66% of the population to vote for you, you get elected.
This puts the PVV on about 41 seats, which is where Peil have had them for a while. The interesting question is whether Peil (which has them on c. 41 seats is right, or whether Ipsos, which also reported a poll last week, is right to have them on 32 seats.)
Intriguingly, even a majority of PVV voters agree with the statement "The Euro is good for the Netherlands", which suggests (to me at least) that the PVV's rise is all about the impact of Muslim immigration on the Netherlands.
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.
That's true; however what Salmond did (and had to do) was reach an agreement with HMG that enabled the referendum. Part of that deal was that the referendum would settle the matter. Trying to re-open the question would show that HMG couldn't trust the Scottish Government to hold to an agreement, and hence a new agreement would not be reached.
True, and that's an obstacle she'd need to navigate round. All the same, if there really was strong support for a second referendum I don't see how the UK government could reasonably reject the call.
Under what possible realistic circumstance an we expect to see a 'strong' call for a second referendum? Are Scotland going to vote for a break with the UK union and an alternative which involves the Euro, forced acceptance of refugees and workers from the far flung parts of the EU (which would be the reasons we are told for a Leave vote) plus joining Schengen with the overall inevitable consequence of accepting Franco German hegemony and border controls with the rUK. This is before we get to the ever closer (EU) Union aspects being forced to join the Euro. By no measure in any foreseeable future are Salmonds economic promises going to come true.
But then again the true nature of the SNP and the absurd fantasies of the nationalists is to merely enjoy the trappings of Ruritanian statehood whilst leaving the inconvenient realities to be covered over by the EU flag of convenience.
Surely the option available to the Chancellor is to cap annual contributions subject to higher rate relief from £40,000 a year down to say £10,000 or £20,000/year.
That would leave people earning £50-60k or less pretty much unaffected (unless they leave pension contributions very late).
You could then effectively scrap the maximum lifetime limit.
It means a party often referred to as "far-right" has a 15 point lead in one of Europe's most liberal countries. How can this be?
To be fair, a large part of that is down to the massive spread of parties in low double figures. There have been polls with a party on 28% (or more) in third place.
You bragged about Scotland's superior water management and then you came a delicious cropper.
No, I pointed out that flood prevention does not happen by building huge defences which appears to be the UK government's "solution" for England and which clearly has a very poor track record and that may be related to privatisation.
In the post where I suggested this, I actually stated "floods still happen in Scotland".
But don't let facts get in the way of another of your rants.
But as I pointed out at the time, you were wrong in your assumptions, which seemed more based in your anti-English, pro-Scottish views than in sanity. And you very much came a cropper.
It means a party often referred to as "far-right" has a 15 point lead in one of Europe's most liberal countries. How can this be?
I wonder if the loony left would try to ban Geert Wilders from the UK were he to become PM of the Netherlands.
The second name is the European Parliament group. Is this a European Parliament poll?
Maybe. It's a tiny score for the VVD isn't it? They haven't been that low before afaik. But then, there have been events.
I've noticed that before in polls for other EU countries. I don't know whether it's because the EP groupings actually mean anything in those countries or just because some ever-closer-union zealots are trying to make them relevant.
Could we get an official PB Tory line on whether the SNP are communists or crypto Tories? I am suffering mental whiplash the way they change their policies from post to post.
Could we get an official PB Tory line on whether the SNP are communists or crypto Tories? I am suffering mental whiplash the way they change their policies from post to post.
They could be both of course. And eco-terrorists into the bargain
You bragged about Scotland's superior water management and then you came a delicious cropper.
No, I pointed out that flood prevention does not happen by building huge defences which appears to be the UK government's "solution" for England and which clearly has a very poor track record and that may be related to privatisation.
In the post where I suggested this, I actually stated "floods still happen in Scotland".
But don't let facts get in the way of another of your rants.
But as I pointed out at the time, you were wrong in your assumptions, which seemed more based in your anti-English, pro-Scottish views than in sanity. And you very much came a cropper.
Plenty of large schemes there. Perhaps if the Scottish government spent more on 'huge defences' there would not have been such a mess a month ago.
As for the last line: you hardly let facts get in the way of your rants, do you?
How many homes were actually flooded in Scotland this month? I know a few hundred families were evacuated on a precautionary basis but the actual number of affected homes on the news was not particularly large.
The core problem is not that I am someone biased against England but that the usual "we're the best" attitude which is the gut response of any criticism has kicked in. England seems to be struggling with the issue of flooding and does not appear to have solutions to the problem.
The core issue remains. Privatised water companies with no responsibility for water management prevail in England, the government tries to patch up an increasingly precarious situation with inadequate defences but the political ideologues won't address the root of the problem.
And no amount of unannotated 50 year old maps will change that.
Could we get an official PB Tory line on whether the SNP are communists or crypto Tories? I am suffering mental whiplash the way they change their policies from post to post.
The official line is that the SNP are National(ist) Socialists.
It means a party often referred to as "far-right" has a 15 point lead in one of Europe's most liberal countries. How can this be?
I wonder if the loony left would try to ban Geert Wilders from the UK were he to become PM of the Netherlands.
The second name is the European Parliament group. Is this a European Parliament poll?
Maybe. It's a tiny score for the VVD isn't it? They haven't been that low before afaik. But then, there have been events.
I've noticed that before in polls for other EU countries. I don't know whether it's because the EP groupings actually mean anything in those countries or just because some ever-closer-union zealots are trying to make them relevant.
Its for the same reason the core analysis of the thread today was broken.
People don't vote the same way under a proportional system as they do with a broken FPTP system. The Tories would never get 37% under PR, so the basis for the thread is flawed.
Could we get an official PB Tory line on whether the SNP are communists or crypto Tories? I am suffering mental whiplash the way they change their policies from post to post.
Not sure where your whip lash derives from, you appear to be the only one to have mentioned the term Communist or crypto Tory on this thread.
Could we get an official PB Tory line on whether the SNP are communists or crypto Tories? I am suffering mental whiplash the way they change their policies from post to post.
the usual "we're the best" attitude which is the gut response of any criticism has kicked in.
Physician, heal thyself.
Scotland invented Universal Public Education. For that alone, there is a certain moral high ground.
I'm struggling to think of anything that England, the British Empire or the vetigial UK has done for the world which is remotely positive.
At best a good argument could be made for the European Convention on Human Rights and the ECHR which Churchill can claim responsibility for. But sadly it seems the UK wants to turn her back on this outstanding, ground-breaking legacy.
There we have it. You need to understand that to the vast majority of people in the country you are incredibly well paid.
I earn more than that. I'm still incensed by the policy of hitting people who work hard and save hard to fund Osborne's leadership ambitions after he dumped the tax credit reforms.
Living in London isn't cheap. I own a pretty modest two bedroom flat for which I have a truly massive mortgage (which accounts for 40% of my post tax income). I've been unable to afford major renovations since I moved in and hopefully now that my fixed rate period is coming to an end I can re-mortgage the flat and reduce my outgoings and actually have a decent amount of money left. Getting on the housing ladder costs so much money at the moment (I'm lucky I bought when I did, I would never be able to afford the current price of my flat) that even being "incredibly well paid" isn't enough.
Maybe the calculation is that by doing this he not really pissing that many people off. In the private sector there are maybe 2m people who earn above £50k? Another 2m who earn between £35k and £50k, vs an electorate of 40m a couple of million people who are directly affected and another 2m who stand to be effected in a few years isn't that much.
What bugs me the most is that we have a Conservative chancellor who is supposed to stand for aspiration and personal responsibility telling people who have worked hard and are trying to save for their retirements that, yes, we're going to hit you harder to pay for the feckless workless families with 6 kids so I can become PM.
It is anti-aspirational, it makes it harder for people to provide for their own retirements, it builds up more pension liabilities which the next generation will have to address. In what way is it conservative (I mean in a small-c sense) to pay for today's spending commitments with our children's money? For, that's the group who will have to make up for the shortfall in pension income. A Conservative is fixing today's problems with our children's money, I let him off the deficit because that was inherited, I let him off the defence spending cuts because the deficit was so large, I blamed the aid spending on the PM, I let him off slowing down spending cuts because the election was looming large but here we are in 2015/16 and this TORY chancellor is hitting savers to spend money on welfare and tax credits which is where his decision to reverse spending cuts is coming back to haunt him. I can no longer defend this chancellor, he is doing what I expect a Labour chancellor would do. It is unacceptable.
You bragged about Scotland's superior water management and then you came a delicious cropper.
No, I pointed out that flood prevention does not happen by building huge defences which appears to be the UK government's "solution" for England and which clearly has a very poor track record and that may be related to privatisation.
In the post where I suggested this, I actually stated "floods still happen in Scotland".
But don't let facts get in the way of another of your rants.
But as I pointed out at the time, you were wrong in your assumptions, which seemed more based in your anti-English, pro-Scottish views than in sanity. And you very much came a cropper.
Plenty of large schemes there. Perhaps if the Scottish government spent more on 'huge defences' there would not have been such a mess a month ago.
As for the last line: you hardly let facts get in the way of your rants, do you?
How many homes were actually flooded in Scotland this month? I know a few hundred families were evacuated on a precautionary basis but the actual number of affected homes on the news was not particularly large.
The core problem is not that I am someone biased against England but that the usual "we're the best" attitude which is the gut response of any criticism has kicked in. England seems to be struggling with the issue of flooding and does not appear to have solutions to the problem.
The core issue remains. Privatised water companies with no responsibility for water management prevail in England, the government tries to patch up an increasingly precarious situation with inadequate defences but the political ideologues won't address the root of the problem.
And no amount of unannotated 50 year old maps will change that.
The 'the usual "we're the best" attitude' is exactly what you were displaying with your original post.
The reason why we are struggling with flooding are manyfold: from building on floodplains, through historic and current land management and poor resilience to there simply being too much rainfall. Scotland, due to its greater land area and lesser population, does not have as much of some of these pressures, but they do exist. As we saw last month.
As I've pointed out before, the 'core issue' you seem hung up on is based more on your political biases than reality. And as for 50-year old maps: they're the schemes up to 2010. So you're wrong there as well.
And the other link I added shows some recent SNP schemes.
the usual "we're the best" attitude which is the gut response of any criticism has kicked in.
Physician, heal thyself.
Scotland invented Universal Public Education. For that alone, there is a certain moral high ground.
I'm struggling to think of anything that England, the British Empire or the vetigial UK has done for the world which is remotely positive.
At best a good argument could be made for the European Convention on Human Rights and the ECHR which Churchill can claim responsibility for. But sadly it seems the UK wants to turn her back on this outstanding, ground-breaking legacy.
"I'm struggling to think of anything that England, the British Empire or the vetigial UK has done for the world which is remotely positive."
That's the Scottish "we're the best" attitude showing again, eh?
A look back through their timeline shows they even add the EP groups to UK polls. So definitely ever-closer-union zealots who are trying to create some relevance for them.
Could we get an official PB Tory line on whether the SNP are communists or crypto Tories? I am suffering mental whiplash the way they change their policies from post to post.
They could be both of course. And eco-terrorists into the bargain
That’s a feature of Nationalist parties. The aim is independence; the economic structure afterwards is secondary to the main target, and can be sorted out afterwards.
There we have it. You need to understand that to the vast majority of people in the country you are incredibly well paid.
I earn above the average income, yes. I've worked bloody hard for it too, and my work benefits the whole economy: I build and manage national infrastructure projects.
Have you tried to live on £54k pa in the south-east too, paying £5k a year commuting costs, a heavy mortgage for an average semi with two bedrooms and serving a five-figure student loan?
I have no landed wealth, inherited wealth or real assets except a mortgage: I earned a very average salary for years.
This is a fundamentally socialist argument: that those on a decent salary are very lucky, rather well-off and can be taxed be at the Government's discretion to fund its coffers whenever its a bit short, and should be bloody thankful for it.
There's no limit to when that argument can be deployed either, as you can always play the "well paid" line.
What you're really talking about is inequality of income, redistribution and levelling to aim to engender equality. The Conservatives used to believe in equality of opportunity, encouraging aspiration and backing the people who work hard to make the country's economy tick.
Now we're going for taxing the income of the middle-class to pay for extra spending, where the rich aren't affected and those on or below average income gratefully receive a few little perks from their munificent Government. Just like under Gordon Brown.
the usual "we're the best" attitude which is the gut response of any criticism has kicked in.
Physician, heal thyself.
Scotland invented Universal Public Education. For that alone, there is a certain moral high ground.
I'm struggling to think of anything that England, the British Empire or the vetigial UK has done for the world which is remotely positive.
At best a good argument could be made for the European Convention on Human Rights and the ECHR which Churchill can claim responsibility for. But sadly it seems the UK wants to turn her back on this outstanding, ground-breaking legacy.
Theres football, and democracy, and railways...
But apart from that what have the Romans ever done for us?
the usual "we're the best" attitude which is the gut response of any criticism has kicked in.
Physician, heal thyself.
Scotland invented Universal Public Education. For that alone, there is a certain moral high ground.
I'm struggling to think of anything that England, the British Empire or the vetigial UK has done for the world which is remotely positive.
At best a good argument could be made for the European Convention on Human Rights and the ECHR which Churchill can claim responsibility for. But sadly it seems the UK wants to turn her back on this outstanding, ground-breaking legacy.
Theres football, and democracy, and railways...
But apart from that what have the Romans ever done for us?
The Industrial Revolution, the jet aircraft, vast quantities of scientific and medical research...
There we have it. You need to understand that to the vast majority of people in the country you are incredibly well paid.
I earn more than that. I'm still incensed by the policy of hitting people who work hard and save hard to fund Osborne's leadership ambitions after he dumped the tax credit reforms.
Living in London isn't cheap. I own a pretty modest two bedroom flat for which I have a truly massive mortgage (which accounts for 40% of my post tax income). I've been unable to afford major renovations since I moved in and hopefully now that my fixed rate period is coming to an end I can re-mortgage the flat and reduce my outgoings and actually have a decent amount of money left. Getting on the housing ladder costs so much money at the moment (I'm lucky I bought when I did, I would never be able to afford the current price of my flat) that even being "incredibly well paid" isn't enough.
Maybe the calculation is that by doing this he not really pissing that many people off. In the private sector there are maybe 2m people who earn above £50k? Another 2m who earn between £35k and £50k, vs an electorate of 40m a couple of million people who are directly affected and another 2m who stand to be effected in a few years isn't that much.
What bugs me the most is that we have a Conservative chancellor who is supposed to stand for aspiration and personal responsibility telling people who have worked hard and are trying to save for their retirements that, yes, we're going to hit you harder to pay for the feckless workless families with 6 kids so I can become PM.
It is anti-aspirational, it makes it harder for people to provide for their own retirements, it builds up more pension liabilities which the next generation will have to address. In what way is it conservative (I mean in a small-c sense) to pay for today's spending commitments with our children's money? For, that's the group who will have to make up for the shortfall in pension income. A Conservative is fixing today's problems with our children's money, I let him off the deficit because that was inherited, I let him off the defence spending cuts because the deficit was so large, I blamed the aid spending on the PM, I let him off slowing down spending cuts because the election was looming large but here we are in 2015/16 and this TORY chancellor is hitting savers to spend money on welfare and tax credits which is where his decision to reverse spending cuts is coming back to haunt him. I can no longer defend this chancellor, he is doing what I expect a Labour chancellor would do. It is unacceptable.
So you approve of the government giving huge payments/subsidies to high earners for their pensions?
Comments
Its natural supporters will find somewhere to go if that's the attitude of the governing party.
It is precisely why Conservative membership is now so low, at sub 100k. And it's also how New Labour became so hollowed out post Blair.
What will I do as a centre-right voter if Osborne takes me for granted?
Resign my membership, stop donating and stop campaigning. And that's a start.
I would also either abstain or vote UKIP. Neither is healthy for the Conservatives.
Or, in other words, [citation needed].
Even so, if the figures do end up something like Lab 26, Con 15, Plaid 8, UKIP 8, LD 3 then the Lib Dems' vote could be critical on votes where Plaid abstained.
Only you seem to claim that, bizarrely.
I was a basic-rate taxpayer for the first seven years of my career. Through sheer hard work and risk-taking, I was then fortunate enough to earn a promotion in a new firm paying me £54k pa.
The Employer paid 5% of that salary in. I paid a further 5%. The contributions amount to £5.4k pa. That's way, way below the £40k annual limit that currently exists. And I will never hit the lifetime limit.
I can fully understand why the Government shouldn't provide full tax relief to someone earning £150k pa and paying 45% top rate tax on their pension pot.
But we have a pensions savings crisis. There are hundreds of thousands of aspirational Conservative voters doing their damn best to pull the country out of recession (and millions more who wish to be) - who have no landed wealth, or real assets - and who are also paying high commuting costs and servicing large mortgages, who want nothing more than to save a little for their old age.
Pensions are tinkered with year after year after year. It's hard enough to make a case for saving as it is. What sort of message does the government send out by robbing them of 10% annual tax relief (assuming we move to 30% relief pa) on such small contributions?
I may as well just give up and rely on the State in my old age, in which case we'll all be paying more.
People being frightened of a Labour-SNP coalition in Morley or Telford or Brecon did help the Conservatives:
' Former Lib Dem MP for Brecon and Radnorshire, Roger Williams, says voters were "pushed" into voting for the Conservatives because they were afraid of the influence of the SNP.
"I do believe it was the fear that the people of Brecon and Radnorshire had, and right across Wales as well, that the Scottish National Party would have a big influence of the governance in the UK," Mr Williams aid.
"They were really afraid of that and were pushed into voting Conservative to have a Conservative majority government." '
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/constituencies/W07000068
The UK doesn't have a problem with its level of exports; it has a problem with its level of consumption. The table below shows consumer spending as a percent of GDP. The good news is that we're better than Greece!
We spend too much. But any government that took policies to increase savings rates, would see riots. We have found ourselves in a situation where doing the right thing would be political suicide.
And one other thing: the countries that sorted out their current account issues by clamping down on consumption (Spain, Italy, Portugal), did so at the cost of horrendous recessions. We had a much milder recession because we kept consumer spending up. But, of course, now our imbalances are worse than ever.
That's just absurd...
I fully expect Osborne to pull something out of the hat with raising the 40p threshold from £40k to £50k a bit faster to offset some of the effect.
But whereas before the election I expected a small tax cut, it's now clear I'll be very lucky to break even.
As such, the UK government is no longer bound by the Edinburgh Agreement and from May 2016, the Scottish government will no longer be bound by the Edinburgh Agreement.
But it's a pointless, pedantic argument, which you know. If the SNP build a mandate for another referendum, it will happen and no amount of Loyalist whining will stop it.
Those on £15k+ (just above the minimum wage) are in the top 8% of global income.
It's meaningless without taking the cost of living into account.
Britain ‘poised to open door to thousands of migrant children’
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/23/britain-poised-open-door-migrant-children
Camerons governments must be catching up Quick in the numbers coming here with the open door new labour governments.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jan/24/nicola-sturgeon-eu-referendum-june-mistake-cameron
"Chancellor George Osborne, speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, said that the urgency of Europe’s refugee crisis was an incentive for Britain’s 27 EU partners to conclude a swift renegotiation agreement that would allow the government to propose a Yes vote in the up-coming referendum."
It's a sweetener for the "deal".
Much like your hero Eck with his boasting about Scottish banks and then his expert oil economist's predictions for the price of oil.
We're allowed to laugh.
Even Pete Wishart admits it: the separatists lost decisively and the matter is closed. Why can't you?
Nicola has abandoned it.
Unless you're claiming that Panelbase will offer "tailored" results in which case, you might want to consider the claim before a letter arrives from Mssrs Sue, Grabbit and Runne.
Given the sainted Nicola's assertion I think that the ex pat Scottish votes (in England as well as abroad) should be counted separately.
Have you tried to live on £54k pa in the south-east too, paying £5k a year commuting costs, a heavy mortgage for an average semi with two bedrooms and serving a five-figure student loan?
I have no landed wealth, inherited wealth or real assets except a mortgage: I earned a very average salary for years.
This is a fundamentally socialist argument: that those on a decent salary are very lucky, rather well-off and can be taxed be at the Government's discretion to fund its coffers whenever its a bit short, and should be bloody thankful for it.
There's no limit to when that argument can be deployed either, as you can always play the "well paid" line.
What you're really talking about is inequality of income, redistribution and levelling to aim to engender equality. The Conservatives used to believe in equality of opportunity, encouraging aspiration and backing the people who work hard to make the country's economy tick.
Now we're going for taxing the income of the middle-class to pay for extra spending, where the rich aren't affected and those on or below average income gratefully receive a few little perks from their munificent Government. Just like under Gordon Brown.
Perhaps you should join the Labour Party.
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/osborne-anger-over-fat-cat-025037758.html
In the post where I suggested this, I actually stated "floods still happen in Scotland".
But don't let facts get in the way of another of your rants.
I expect Osborne to deliver to his promises to cut welfare spending and departmental budgets further.
You should run for office
And it's not just the policy. It's the brazen and arrogant way Osborne is reported to be doing it because he calculates his voter base have "nowhere else to go".
Would you have ever caught Thatcher acting like that?
Everything I read (and hear) about Osborne is validated by his actions. It's a real omen for what's to follow if this total arse ever gets his grubby hands on the levers of No.10.
He should remember: I have a vote in that.
Europe Elects
Netherlands, peil.nl poll:
PVV-ENF: 28% ↑
CDA-EPP 13%
VVD-ALDE 12%
GL-GREEN 11% ↑
D66-ALDE 11%
SP-LEFT 10%
PvdA-S&D 6%
CU-ECR 3%
#Wilders
To an extent we already saw such voting at the last GE when UKIP supporters on the day said, "Sorry, Nige, but the risk of Miliband and Salmond was too much, I had to vote Conservative".
That, I think is the tragedy for everyone of Labour going down the path that it has. It has robbed the majority of an alternative and allowed Cameron and Osborne a free rein.
With apologies, I must duck out now. Sunday lunch beckons. My wife is pulling me away..
Good afternoon to you.
But my point is not about what the government should or shouldn't do - it's about how the vast majority of people in the country see you - very well paid albeit not to the point of incomprehensibility (and me - reasonably well paid). Given that the mantra of the Cameron-Osborne administrations has been "we're all in this together", why should people like you be excluded?
Like you, I expect to be a 'not-Osborne' voter in the leadership election.
Why Osborne announced his trillion pound export target is beyond me - a trip round anyone shopping centre will show where the trade deficit comes from.
Another problem is that after all the 'austerity' rhetoric people now think we're entitled to more spending and living standards rising again whereas the real pain hasn't yet been applied.
He has to understand there are consequences.
In the longer-term, I'd become a full-blooded supporter of voting reform.
That would end this stupid behaviour.
This puts the PVV on about 41 seats, which is where Peil have had them for a while. The interesting question is whether Peil (which has them on c. 41 seats is right, or whether Ipsos, which also reported a poll last week, is right to have them on 32 seats.)
Intriguingly, even a majority of PVV voters agree with the statement "The Euro is good for the Netherlands", which suggests (to me at least) that the PVV's rise is all about the impact of Muslim immigration on the Netherlands.
Are Scotland going to vote for a break with the UK union and an alternative which involves the Euro, forced acceptance of refugees and workers from the far flung parts of the EU (which would be the reasons we are told for a Leave vote) plus joining Schengen with the overall inevitable consequence of accepting Franco German hegemony and border controls with the rUK. This is before we get to the ever closer (EU) Union aspects being forced to join the Euro. By no measure in any foreseeable future are Salmonds economic promises going to come true.
But then again the true nature of the SNP and the absurd fantasies of the nationalists is to merely enjoy the trappings of Ruritanian statehood whilst leaving the inconvenient realities to be covered over by the EU flag of convenience.
Surely the option available to the Chancellor is to cap annual contributions subject to higher rate relief from £40,000 a year down to say £10,000 or £20,000/year.
That would leave people earning £50-60k or less pretty much unaffected (unless they leave pension contributions very late).
You could then effectively scrap the maximum lifetime limit.
If England could just get the deficit down below 100 they might fancy their chances.
Falklands Islands
Hey @jeremycorbyn - What's your problem with the #Falklands? Were you bullied by a penguin as a child?
As for Scottish flood defence schemes:
http://www.gov.scot/Resource/Doc/1057/0096947.pdf
(Edit: and http://news.scotland.gov.uk/News/Flood-funding-af1.aspx )
Plenty of large schemes there. Perhaps if the Scottish government spent more on 'huge defences' there would not have been such a mess a month ago.
As for the last line: you hardly let facts get in the way of your rants, do you?
The core problem is not that I am someone biased against England but that the usual "we're the best" attitude which is the gut response of any criticism has kicked in. England seems to be struggling with the issue of flooding and does not appear to have solutions to the problem.
The core issue remains. Privatised water companies with no responsibility for water management prevail in England, the government tries to patch up an increasingly precarious situation with inadequate defences but the political ideologues won't address the root of the problem.
And no amount of unannotated 50 year old maps will change that.
People don't vote the same way under a proportional system as they do with a broken FPTP system. The Tories would never get 37% under PR, so the basis for the thread is flawed.
If this were Britain one would think that it would swing back to VVD before polling day. But then it's not.
I think @TheWhiteRabbit is right that it's an EP poll. Er, probably.
https://twitter.com/europeelects/status/681069234785484801
I'm struggling to think of anything that England, the British Empire or the vetigial UK has done for the world which is remotely positive.
At best a good argument could be made for the European Convention on Human Rights and the ECHR which Churchill can claim responsibility for. But sadly it seems the UK wants to turn her back on this outstanding, ground-breaking legacy.
Living in London isn't cheap. I own a pretty modest two bedroom flat for which I have a truly massive mortgage (which accounts for 40% of my post tax income). I've been unable to afford major renovations since I moved in and hopefully now that my fixed rate period is coming to an end I can re-mortgage the flat and reduce my outgoings and actually have a decent amount of money left. Getting on the housing ladder costs so much money at the moment (I'm lucky I bought when I did, I would never be able to afford the current price of my flat) that even being "incredibly well paid" isn't enough.
Maybe the calculation is that by doing this he not really pissing that many people off. In the private sector there are maybe 2m people who earn above £50k? Another 2m who earn between £35k and £50k, vs an electorate of 40m a couple of million people who are directly affected and another 2m who stand to be effected in a few years isn't that much.
What bugs me the most is that we have a Conservative chancellor who is supposed to stand for aspiration and personal responsibility telling people who have worked hard and are trying to save for their retirements that, yes, we're going to hit you harder to pay for the feckless workless families with 6 kids so I can become PM.
It is anti-aspirational, it makes it harder for people to provide for their own retirements, it builds up more pension liabilities which the next generation will have to address. In what way is it conservative (I mean in a small-c sense) to pay for today's spending commitments with our children's money? For, that's the group who will have to make up for the shortfall in pension income. A Conservative is fixing today's problems with our children's money, I let him off the deficit because that was inherited, I let him off the defence spending cuts because the deficit was so large, I blamed the aid spending on the PM, I let him off slowing down spending cuts because the election was looming large but here we are in 2015/16 and this TORY chancellor is hitting savers to spend money on welfare and tax credits which is where his decision to reverse spending cuts is coming back to haunt him. I can no longer defend this chancellor, he is doing what I expect a Labour chancellor would do. It is unacceptable.
Little high, little low
The reason why we are struggling with flooding are manyfold: from building on floodplains, through historic and current land management and poor resilience to there simply being too much rainfall. Scotland, due to its greater land area and lesser population, does not have as much of some of these pressures, but they do exist. As we saw last month.
As I've pointed out before, the 'core issue' you seem hung up on is based more on your political biases than reality. And as for 50-year old maps: they're the schemes up to 2010. So you're wrong there as well.
And the other link I added shows some recent SNP schemes.
That's the Scottish "we're the best" attitude showing again, eh?
But apart from that what have the Romans ever done for us?
Rain is forecast, apparently. Heavy showers, anyway!