Excellent article by Alastair. He nails it, I think. Also David H's seventh point upthread was a very good one.
From Alastair's article, I particularly liked "For the pendulum to swing back, someone is going to need to give it a yank.". But who, and how?
History strongly suggests that, in cases like this, yanking back the pendulum involves inspirational leadership, and a sustained effort by a team of people over a period of years. Just look at the effort that was put into making Labour electable again in the 1990s. In 2016, there's precious little sign of pendulum-yanking activity so far, that's for sure.
Would put the multiple Leave campaigns on the back foot. Also suggests that Cameron is happy with the deal being offered now.
Leave are in a dreadful state and way behind the curve. Remain have already got their letters, attack ads, attack lines out there and leaflets through the letterbox.
I'm almost certain they're biding their time and waiting (hoping) for May to declare for them once the deal is public.
But even if she does, that might be too late.
Leave in a dreadful state? They've been ahead in around 50% of recent polls.
That has nothing to do with the campaign. Yes to AV were ahead in the polls at this stage in the campaign. Likewise, in 1975 the polls showed support for leaving before the campaign began. Both referendums ended up with 2:1 support for the status quo.
By contrast, No frittered away a 3:2 lead in Scotland to hold on by the skin of their teeth after Yes ran by far the better campaign.
As things stand with Leave, Remain will win comfortably.
I agree, David.
I would have thought by now, there would have been leaflets and canvassing. At the moment, Leave are wasting their biggest asset, people willing to campaign on the ground.
Against that, the flow of bad news from Europe is relentless.
1. Ludicrous economic scaremongering 2. Hoping the middling sort will take their lead from that nice Mr. Cameron when he tells them what a nice deal he has got 3. Trying to get the vote out of the way as quickly as possible before the voters take an interest in the issues
All are dishonest and cynical. It's remarkable that absolutely no-one is making the traditional 'Europe is our bright future' pitch. That kind of pro-Europeanism is totally dead.
'Leave are in a dreadful state and way behind the curve. Remain have already got their letters, attack ads, attack lines out there and leaflets through the letterbox.'
Unlike PB,you really think the average voter has even thought about the EU referendum ?
The bottom line is that a certain (and worryingly high) percentage of the male immigrants we accept will be 'testosterone bombs'. Until and unless some effective action is taken across the EU to secure its external (and internal) borders we are just going to see a lot more of these stories of women being attacked and abused. I think ground zero in this will be Germany actually. They've gone OTT on the intake and are a pretty feminist bunch on the whole. But they're so meek and guilt wracked. However, once France's women start getting the rape treatment instead of the AK47 treatment then it will really hot-up politically. What a mess.
Young men in groups with little to do have always been bad news. The testosterone pumps you full of physical and sexual energy and, in groups, you egg each other on.
If there is no sport, no jobs and no women coupled with a huge sense of entitlement to all of it - and just a religious dogma to fall back upon that is highly subject to misogyny - and you are asking for big trouble.
Are you talking about political parties?
I damn sure wouldn't let a million professional politicians into the country!
''They are not talking about taxes on middle earners or inheritance tax on the main family home. ''
That Tank parking piece posted by Ms Plato is straight out of the Blair playbook. What the cameroons don;t understand is that poor voters HATE taxes on the middle classes. Why? because most poor people aspire to be middle class. They hate to think their reward for all the hard work will be yet another bill from George Osborne.
Would put the multiple Leave campaigns on the back foot. Also suggests that Cameron is happy with the deal being offered now.
Leave are in a dreadful state and way behind the curve. Remain have already got their letters, attack ads, attack lines out there and leaflets through the letterbox.
I'm almost certain they're biding their time and waiting (hoping) for May to declare for them once the deal is public.
But even if she does, that might be too late.
Leave in a dreadful state? They've been ahead in around 50% of recent polls.
That has nothing to do with the campaign. Yes to AV were ahead in the polls at this stage in the campaign. Likewise, in 1975 the polls showed support for leaving before the campaign began. Both referendums ended up with 2:1 support for the status quo.
By contrast, No frittered away a 3:2 lead in Scotland to hold on by the skin of their teeth after Yes ran by far the better campaign.
As things stand with Leave, Remain will win comfortably.
I agree, David.
I would have thought by now, there would have been leaflets and canvassing. At the moment, Leave are wasting their biggest asset, people willing to campaign on the ground.
Against that, the flow of bad news from Europe is relentless.
They are waiting for May.
They do indeed seem to be following the old adage:
"ne'er cast a clout till May is Out."
If Theresa declares for Leave, that will be to their advantage.
@LadPolitics: @RuthDavidsonMSP@wallaceme Oi! Don't hijack our initiative by advertising foreign bookmakers! Open an account with us and I'll give you 5/1
So Ruth is betting on repeal of the FTPA or the Conservative Party splitting?
'Leave are in a dreadful state and way behind the curve. Remain have already got their letters, attack ads, attack lines out there and leaflets through the letterbox.'
Unlike PB,you really think the average voter has even thought about the EU referendum ?
Of course they haven't, and I wouldn't have thought anyone I personally know was aware there had ever been an AV referendum. People aren't interested
Incidentally, to be on the safe side, if you're a higher-rate taxpayer thinking of making a large pension contribution this tax year, don't leave it too late. There's an outside chance that March 16 (the day of the budget) could be a cut-off date.
Excellent article by Alastair. He nails it, I think. Also David H's seventh point upthread was a very good one.
From Alastair's article, I particularly liked "For the pendulum to swing back, someone is going to need to give it a yank.". But who, and how?
History strongly suggests that, in cases like this, yanking back the pendulum involves inspirational leadership, and a sustained effort by a team of people over a period of years. Just look at the effort that was put into making Labour electable again in the 1990s. In 2016, there's precious little sign of pendulum-yanking activity so far, that's for sure.
Maybe plans are being laid which will be put into action after the May election results. Alternatively the Labour right will go out with a whimper as they are deselected.
@WikiGuido: Tories attack Sadiq as "Corbyn's man in City Hall". Ken Livingstone helpfully parrots the same line in the Standard. https://t.co/VNW5AfQbUS
One of the problems that the article doesn't deal with is that Labour's right wing doesn't really exist. There is no coherent entity with an underlying and unifying political purpose.
There are some people who identify with Blair, some with Brown and a few others who got into politics to get into government. They are currently unified by their dislike of Corbyn. That's about it.
Someone needs to identify what the right of Labour is for, not against. It's a problem that has infected the whole party BTW not just the right.
The bottom line is that a certain (and worryingly high) percentage of the male immigrants we accept will be 'testosterone bombs'. Until and unless some effective action is taken across the EU to secure its external (and internal) borders we are just going to see a lot more of these stories of women being attacked and abused. I think ground zero in this will be Germany actually. They've gone OTT on the intake and are a pretty feminist bunch on the whole. But they're so meek and guilt wracked. However, once France's women start getting the rape treatment instead of the AK47 treatment then it will really hot-up politically. What a mess.
Would put the multiple Leave campaigns on the back foot. Also suggests that Cameron is happy with the deal being offered now.
Leave are in a dreadful state and way behind the curve. Remain have already got their letters, attack ads, attack lines out there and leaflets through the letterbox.
I'm almost certain they're biding their time and waiting (hoping) for May to declare for them once the deal is public.
But even if she does, that might be too late.
Leave in a dreadful state? They've been ahead in around 50% of recent polls.
That has nothing to do with the campaign. Yes to AV were ahead in the polls at this stage in the campaign. Likewise, in 1975 the polls showed support for leaving before the campaign began. Both referendums ended up with 2:1 support for the status quo.
By contrast, No frittered away a 3:2 lead in Scotland to hold on by the skin of their teeth after Yes ran by far the better campaign.
As things stand with Leave, Remain will win comfortably.
I agree, David.
I would have thought by now, there would have been leaflets and canvassing. At the moment, Leave are wasting their biggest asset, people willing to campaign on the ground.
Against that, the flow of bad news from Europe is relentless.
One of the problems that the article doesn't deal with is that Labour's right wing doesn't really exist. There is no coherent entity with an underlying and unifying political purpose.
There are some people who identify with Blair, some with Brown and a few others who got into politics to get into government. They are currently unified by their dislike of Corbyn. That's about it.
Someone needs to identify what the right of Labour is for, not against. It's a problem that has infected the whole party BTW not just the right.
If Labour doesn't define what it is for then its opponents will do that for it.
''Incidentally, to be on the safe side, if you're a higher-rate taxpayer thinking of making a large pension contribution this tax year, don't leave it too late. There's an outside chance that March 16 (the day of the budget) could be a cut-off date.''
Cameroon apologist warns striving middle class posters to get in now to avoid swingeing tax increases from......erm......Cameron.
you couldn;t make it up.
Still, I think the penny is starting to drop in the tory party.
Would put the multiple Leave campaigns on the back foot. Also suggests that Cameron is happy with the deal being offered now.
Leave are in a dreadful state and way behind the curve. Remain have already got their letters, attack ads, attack lines out there and leaflets through the letterbox.
I'm almost certain they're biding their time and waiting (hoping) for May to declare for them once the deal is public.
But even if she does, that might be too late.
Leave in a dreadful state? They've been ahead in around 50% of recent polls.
That has nothing to do with the campaign. Yes to AV were ahead in the polls at this stage in the campaign. Likewise, in 1975 the polls showed support for leaving before the campaign began. Both referendums ended up with 2:1 support for the status quo.
By contrast, No frittered away a 3:2 lead in Scotland to hold on by the skin of their teeth after Yes ran by far the better campaign.
As things stand with Leave, Remain will win comfortably.
I agree, David.
I would have thought by now, there would have been leaflets and canvassing. At the moment, Leave are wasting their biggest asset, people willing to campaign on the ground.
Against that, the flow of bad news from Europe is relentless.
They are waiting for May.
I'm happy to quit the EU, but suspect that my vote will be wasted.
The second the starting gun goes off, the various factions and rivals on the Out side will all kick off with competing campaigns and messages, and Leave will completely bugger it up.
There is no wasted vote in a straight in/out referendum, but that doesn't mean one's viewpoint will win of course.
It could still be close and may come down to just a few hundred thousand votes (which sounds a lot but really isn't in a nationwide referendum) so every vote counts.
... it does seem a bit crummy that Zac could win, as Boris did, from getting all the zone 6 votes (where I live) from people that don't really live in London. That said I guess most people round here do work in zone1 and so are affected
I read that Transport for London is to take over all rail services that connect with London throughout the home counties. Millions more people will be affected by the decisions of the Mayor as a result, even those who do not commute to Town. If zone 6 get a vote why not the people of, say, Brighton.
I think Alistair's first scenario is actually much more plausible than he does.
Corbyn must be under an incredible amount of stress. He's not young. He's never prepared for (or maybe even wanted) this job. If election results this year go as badly as some people expect, I think there must be a good chance he'll realise he's not up to it and step down. He can probably be reasonably confident that the existing membership will elect someone he'd find acceptable and his endorsement might carry a lot of weight.
... it does seem a bit crummy that Zac could win, as Boris did, from getting all the zone 6 votes (where I live) from people that don't really live in London. That said I guess most people round here do work in zone1 and so are affected
I read that Transport for London is to take over all rail services that connect with London throughout the home counties. Millions more people will be affected by the decisions of the Mayor as a result, even those who do not commute to Town. If zone 6 get a vote why not the people of, say, Brighton.
Well I guess the obvious answer is that Zone 6 is in London and Brighton isnt
One of the problems that the article doesn't deal with is that Labour's right wing doesn't really exist. There is no coherent entity with an underlying and unifying political purpose.
There are some people who identify with Blair, some with Brown and a few others who got into politics to get into government. They are currently unified by their dislike of Corbyn. That's about it.
Someone needs to identify what the right of Labour is for, not against. It's a problem that has infected the whole party BTW not just the right.
If Labour doesn't define what it is for then its opponents will do that for it.
The problem with politics in this country is that we have four conservative parties.
Tories want to turn things back to before New Labour. Corbyn's Labour want to turn things back to before Thatcher. UKIP want to turn things back to before Heath. And the SNP want to turn things back to before Queen Anne.
No-one is looking to the future and, if anything, that is what the right wing of Labour is all about.
''Incidentally, to be on the safe side, if you're a higher-rate taxpayer thinking of making a large pension contribution this tax year, don't leave it too late. There's an outside chance that March 16 (the day of the budget) could be a cut-off date.''
Cameroon apologist warns striving middle class posters to get in now to avoid swingeing tax increases from......erm......Cameron.
you couldn;t make it up.
Still, I think the penny is starting to drop in the tory party.
Just giving good advice, which has no downside. I have no inside info.
I'm not sure what penny you are referring to. Within the Conservative Party, and indeed throughout the world, Osborne is regarded as an excellent Chancellor, and the UK as one of the few bright spots amongst leading economies.
'Leave are in a dreadful state and way behind the curve. Remain have already got their letters, attack ads, attack lines out there and leaflets through the letterbox.'
Unlike PB,you really think the average voter has even thought about the EU referendum ?
I think a lot of people are aware of it and many have a view on it, yes. A good quarter are undecided though.
Right now Leave are allowing Remain to dominate the pitch, aiming balls through the goalposts one after the other, with little coherent opposition to stop them.
Even if Remain miss most of their kicks, the longer Leave stay off the field the harder it will be to shape the game.
Would put the multiple Leave campaigns on the back foot. Also suggests that Cameron is happy with the deal being offered now.
Leave are in a dreadful state and way behind the curve. Remain have already got their letters, attack ads, attack lines out there and leaflets through the letterbox.
I'm almost certain they're biding their time and waiting (hoping) for May to declare for them once the deal is public.
But even if she does, that might be too late.
Leave in a dreadful state? They've been ahead in around 50% of recent polls.
That has nothing to do with the campaign. Yes to AV were ahead in the polls at this stage in the campaign. Likewise, in 1975 the polls showed support for leaving before the campaign began. Both referendums ended up with 2:1 support for the status quo.
By contrast, No frittered away a 3:2 lead in Scotland to hold on by the skin of their teeth after Yes ran by far the better campaign.
As things stand with Leave, Remain will win comfortably.
I agree, David.
I would have thought by now, there would have been leaflets and canvassing. At the moment, Leave are wasting their biggest asset, people willing to campaign on the ground.
Against that, the flow of bad news from Europe is relentless.
They are waiting for May.
They do indeed seem to be following the old adage:
"ne'er cast a clout till May is Out."
If Theresa declares for Leave, that will be to their advantage.
If Leave get both May and Howard, two home secretaries, to say you can't protect Britain's borders inside the EU, its all over.
David Cameron has decided that social justice will be his key legacy theme as Prime Minister, with his autumn conference speech and most of the announcements so far this year focusing on an ‘all-...or the country, but also because it is right for the party, which is still seen by too many voters as for the rich.
Here's the thing: I don't disagree with any of that. I thought Cameron's speech was excellent on this the other week (although totally overshadowed by Bowie's death) and I also don't see the pronouncement on the inclusion of Muslims within the mainstream of British society as anything but consistent with it.
What I do disagree with is where it leads Conservatives down the path that taxing the middle-class and redistributing income to low earners is the answer.
When people say the Conservatives are for the rich they are talking about corporation tax cuts, hedge fund donations, privatisations that benefit financial institutions, side-stepping any high-end wealth taxes and big business attitudes to the EU and immigration.
They are not talking about taxes on middle earners or inheritance tax on the main family home.
CR, that is rubbish I'm afraid.
Where middle earners lose out under Conservative (actually all) governments is in the tightening up of loopholes and boons.
My taxes will be increasing this year due to the tightening up of the previously somewhat farcical company ownership/dividend laxity. I'm not moaning. It is correcting something that was previously unfair. And as it is being done at the same time as decreasing CT, it is sensible and pretty difficult to argue against. It is also being executed under a background of public expenditure cuts. This isn't tax and spend Labour, who want to burden the m/c to increase public expenditure as a % of GDP.
Reducing the huge tax relief on pension contributions is only correcting another, albeit long-lived, middle-class boon.
And on IHT, you're talking about the party that has increased the threshold.
To be honest, you've become such a Tory naysayer that I can't imagine what Conservative government you'd have supported since 1832.
Reducing (absolute) poverty grows the economy and reduces in inequities in society. I only trust the Tory party to do this in a way that is least destructive of private wealth and economic outlook. Especially when it is done by increasing wage packets, employment figures and decreasing reliance on in work benefits.
Sometimes you have to dance with the one who brought you.
So Ruth is betting on repeal of the FTPA or the Conservative Party splitting?
No
There was an article about it the other day. With a Tory majority they can force an election any time
They can but 5/1 sounds ballpark rather than generous.
For an early election, there needs to be:
- a two-thirds vote in parliament for a dissolution, or - repeal of the FTPA, or - a vote of no confidence in the govt and no new government within a fortnight.
Of those, repealing the FTPA is possible although it may need the Parliament Act if Labour decides to oppose it. Doing so would flag up the Tories' intent to go early, thereby losing the initiative anyway. There may also be some Tory rebels who think it's quite a good piece of legislation and the government's majority is small.
The Vote of No Confidence option is too clever by half. It's a nice tactic until you think about how it'll look to Joe Public when the Tories No Confidence their own government. Labour's attack lines write themselves (which may be as well because Milne probably couldn't do it).
So it's down to tabling a motion for an early dissolution and daring Labour to vote against it. Which they almost certainly would if the Conservatives wanted it.
However, there's always a chance that someone could miscalculate and the new Tory leader may well want to seek a mandate so we certainly shouldn't rule out the possibility.
One of the problems that the article doesn't deal with is that Labour's right wing doesn't really exist. There is no coherent entity with an underlying and unifying political purpose.
There are some people who identify with Blair, some with Brown and a few others who got into politics to get into government. They are currently unified by their dislike of Corbyn. That's about it.
Someone needs to identify what the right of Labour is for, not against. It's a problem that has infected the whole party BTW not just the right.
If Labour doesn't define what it is for then its opponents will do that for it.
The problem with politics in this country is that we have four conservative parties.
Tories want to turn things back to before New Labour. Corbyn's Labour want to turn things back to before Thatcher. UKIP want to turn things back to before Heath. And the SNP want to turn things back to before Queen Anne.
No-one is looking to the future and, if anything, that is what the right wing of Labour is all about.
Aren't much of right wing Labour looking to turn things back to BG (before Gordon)? Though I suspect even some of them are seeing the clunking fist in a roseate glow.
Governments of both stripes seem to be engaged in a conspiracy to discourage saving as much as possible. Whether you try to provide for yourself in retirement with stocks or property, they squeeze more and more. I don't know why we bother to look out for the future if the taxman wants us to splurge it all on current consumption.
Would put the multiple Leave campaigns on the back foot. Also suggests that Cameron is happy with the deal being offered now.
Leave are in a dreadful state and way behind the curve. Remain have already got their letters, attack ads, attack lines out there and leaflets through the letterbox.
I'm almost certain they're biding their time and waiting (hoping) for May to declare for them once the deal is public.
But even if she does, that might be too late.
Leave in a dreadful state? They've been ahead in around 50% of recent polls.
That has nothing to do with the campaign. Yes to AV were ahead in the polls at this stage in the campaign. Likewise, in 1975 the polls showed support for leaving before the campaign began. Both referendums ended up with 2:1 support for the status quo.
By contrast, No frittered away a 3:2 lead in Scotland to hold on by the skin of their teeth after Yes ran by far the better campaign.
As things stand with Leave, Remain will win comfortably.
I agree, David.
I would have thought by now, there would have been leaflets and canvassing. At the moment, Leave are wasting their biggest asset, people willing to campaign on the ground.
Against that, the flow of bad news from Europe is relentless.
They are waiting for May.
I'm happy to quit the EU, but suspect that my vote will be wasted.
The second the starting gun goes off, the various factions and rivals on the Out side will all kick off with competing campaigns and messages, and Leave will completely bugger it up.
There is no wasted vote in a straight in/out referendum, but that doesn't mean one's viewpoint will win of course.
It could still be close and may come down to just a few hundred thousand votes (which sounds a lot but really isn't in a nationwide referendum) so every vote counts.
PR pedants would say that the excess votes are wasted. So if it does come down to a few hundred thousand, then those few hundred thousand are wasted.
I don't buy that argument. Every vote goes to creating a mandate for a person, party or proposal (or against). Voting reform and regional governments are off the table because of the size of the majorities they went down by. Scottish independence is not for the same reason but from the other side of the coin.
David Cameron has decided that social justice will be his key legacy theme as Prime Minister, with his autumn conference speech and most of the announcements so far this year
Here's the thing: I don't disagree with any of that. I thought Cameron's speech was excellent on this the other week (although totally overshadowed by Bowie's death) and I also don't see the pronouncement on the inclusion of Muslims within the mainstream of British society as anything but consistent with it.
What I do disagree with is where it leads Conservatives down the path that taxing the middle-class and redistributing income to low earners is the answer.
When people say the Conservatives are for the rich they are talking about corporation tax cuts, hedge fund donations, privatisations that benefit financial institutions, side-stepping any high-end wealth taxes and big business attitudes to the EU and immigration.
They are not talking about taxes on middle earners or inheritance tax on the main family home.
CR, that is rubbish I'm afraid.
Where middle earners lose out under Conservative (actually all) governments is in the tightening up of loopholes and boons.
My taxes will be increasing this year due to the tightening up of the previously somewhat farcical company ownership/dividend laxity. I'm not moaning. It is correcting something that was previously unfair. And as it is being done at the same time as decreasing CT, it is sensible and pretty difficult to argue against. It is also being executed under a background of public expenditure cuts. This isn't tax and spend Labour, who want to burden the m/c to increase public expenditure as a % of GDP.
Reducing the huge tax relief on pension contributions is only correcting another, albeit long-lived, middle-class boon.
And on IHT, you're talking about the party that has increased the threshold.
To be honest, you've become such a Tory naysayer that I can't imagine what Conservative government you'd have supported since 1832.
Reducing (absolute) poverty grows the economy and reduces in inequities in society. I only trust the Tory party to do this in a way that is least destructive of private wealth and economic outlook. Especially when it is done by increasing wage packets, employment figures and decreasing reliance on in work benefits.
Sometimes you have to dance with the one who brought you.
I stopped reading when you said 'that's rubbish'.
If you want people to engage with the substance of your argument my tip would be to ditch how they make you feel and focus on your alternative interpretation of the facts.
They can but 5/1 sounds ballpark rather than generous.
For an early election, there needs to be:
- a two-thirds vote in parliament for a dissolution, or - repeal of the FTPA, or - a vote of no confidence in the govt and no new government within a fortnight.
Of those, repealing the FTPA is possible although it may need the Parliament Act if Labour decides to oppose it. Doing so would flag up the Tories' intent to go early, thereby losing the initiative anyway. There may also be some Tory rebels who think it's quite a good piece of legislation and the government's majority is small.
The Vote of No Confidence option is too clever by half. It's a nice tactic until you think about how it'll look to Joe Public when the Tories No Confidence their own government. Labour's attack lines write themselves (which may be as well because Milne probably couldn't do it).
So it's down to tabling a motion for an early dissolution and daring Labour to vote against it. Which they almost certainly would if the Conservatives wanted it.
However, there's always a chance that someone could miscalculate and the new Tory leader may well want to seek a mandate so we certainly shouldn't rule out the possibility.
Yes, in fact 5/1 is distinctly mean. I wouldn't be a backer at anything less than 10/1
Incidentally, to be on the safe side, if you're a higher-rate taxpayer thinking of making a large pension contribution this tax year, don't leave it too late. There's an outside chance that March 16 (the day of the budget) could be a cut-off date.
Some of us (most of us) aren't in the position to do that - to make large contributions - as we only do so through monthly contributions as part of our paypacket through PAYE/our employer.
It's things like that which are precisely my beef with the whole proposal.
''Incidentally, to be on the safe side, if you're a higher-rate taxpayer thinking of making a large pension contribution this tax year, don't leave it too late. There's an outside chance that March 16 (the day of the budget) could be a cut-off date.''
Cameroon apologist warns striving middle class posters to get in now to avoid swingeing tax increases from......erm......Cameron.
you couldn;t make it up.
Still, I think the penny is starting to drop in the tory party.
Just giving good advice, which has no downside. I have no inside info.
I'm not sure what penny you are referring to. Within the Conservative Party, and indeed throughout the world, Osborne is regarded as an excellent Chancellor, and the UK as one of the few bright spots amongst leading economies.
''Incidentally, to be on the safe side, if you're a higher-rate taxpayer thinking of making a large pension contribution this tax year, don't leave it too late. There's an outside chance that March 16 (the day of the budget) could be a cut-off date.''
Cameroon apologist warns striving middle class posters to get in now to avoid swingeing tax increases from......erm......Cameron.
you couldn;t make it up.
Still, I think the penny is starting to drop in the tory party.
Just giving good advice, which has no downside. I have no inside info.
I'm not sure what penny you are referring to. Within the Conservative Party, and indeed throughout the world, Osborne is regarded as an excellent Chancellor, and the UK as one of the few bright spots amongst leading economies.
Running one of the largest deficits of any developed economy and doing so in times of economic growth, massive public debt on which the interest payments are already higher than the budgets of several major departments and still increasing, a current account deficit of horrendous proportions and no apparent plan to reduce it, these are the indicators of an excellent chancellor and a country that is doing well?
David Cameron has decided that social justice will be his key legacy theme as Prime Minister, with his autumn conference speech and most of the announcements so far this year focusing on an ‘all-...or the country, but also because it is right for the party, which is still seen by too many voters as for the rich.
Here's the thing: I don't disagree with any of that. I thought Cameron's speech was excellent on this the other week (although totally overshadowed by Bowie's death) and I also don't see the pronouncement on the inclusion of Muslims within the mainstream of British society as anything but consistent with it.
What I do disagree with is where it leads Conservatives down the path that taxing the middle-class and redistributing income to low earners is the answer.
When people say the Conservatives are for the rich they are talking about corporation tax cuts, hedge fund donations, privatisations that benefit financial institutions, side-stepping any high-end wealth taxes and big business attitudes to the EU and immigration.
They are not talking about taxes on middle earners or inheritance tax on the main family home.
CR, that is rubbish I'm afraid.
Where middle earners lose out under Conservative (actually all) governments is in the tightening up of loopholes and boons.
My taxes will be increasing this year due to the tightening up of the previously somewhat farcical company ownership/dividend laxity. I'm not moaning. It is correcting something that was previously unfair. And as it is being done at the same time as decreasing CT, it is sensible and pretty difficult to argue against. It is also being executed under a background of public expenditure cuts. This isn't tax and spend Labour, who want to burden the m/c to increase public expenditure as a % of GDP.
Reducing the huge tax relief on pension contributions is only correcting another, albeit long-lived, middle-class boon.
And on IHT, you're talking about the party that has increased the threshold.
Sometimes you have to dance with the one who brought you.
What will cost society most is when everyone stops saving for retirement because theres little incentive to do so, and government has to provide for everyone in old age. UK savings rate has been in long term decline for years. We should be taking measures to encourage more saving, not reverse.
David Cameron has decided that social justice will be his key legacy theme as Prime Minister, with his autumn conference speech and most of the announcements so far this year focusing on an ‘all-...or the country, but also because it is right for the party, which is still seen by too many voters as for the rich.
Here's the thing: I don't disagree with any of that. I thought Cameron's speech was excellent on this the other week (although totally overshadowed by Bowie's death) and I also don't see the pronouncement on the inclusion of Muslims within the mainstream of British society as anything but consistent with it.
What I do disagree with is where it leads Conservatives down the path that taxing the middle-class and redistributing income to low earners is the answer.
When people say the Conservatives are for the rich they are talking about corporation tax cuts, hedge fund donations, privatisations that benefit financial institutions, side-stepping any high-end wealth taxes and big business attitudes to the EU and immigration.
They are not talking about taxes on middle earners or inheritance tax on the main family home.
CR, that is rubbish I'm afraid.
Where middle earners lose out under Conservative (actually all) governments is in the tightening up of loopholes and boons.
My taxes will be increasing this year due to the tightening up of the previously somewhat farcical company ownership/dividend laxity. I'm not moaning. It is correcting something that was previously unfair. And as it is being done at the same time as decreasing CT, it is sensible and pretty difficult to argue against. It is also being executed under a background of public expenditure cuts. This isn't tax and spend Labour, who want to burden the m/c to increase public expenditure as a % of GDP.
Reducing the huge tax relief on pension contributions is only correcting another, albeit long-lived, middle-class boon.
And on IHT, you're talking about the party that has increased the threshold.
Sometimes you have to dance with the one who brought you.
What will cost society most is when everyone stops saving for retirement because theres little incentive to do so, and government has to provide for everyone in old age. UK savings rate has been in long term decline for years. We should be taking measures to encourage more saving, not reverse.
When there is no deficit and the debt is in reverse (i.e. when the economy has grown to an extent that can comfortably support us as a nation), incentivising saving would make more sense.
That is a really good point. The pro European campaign will be unable to give that bonhomie, European camaraderie message because people simply won't buy it, so it is just going to hammer away at the economic scaremongering. It worked for the Scottish vote.
That said, the leave campaign have the backdrop of the migrant crisis to throw back, and I think this spring is going to bring some pretty powerful imagery across Europe as the migrant crisis ramps up.
It is going to be "vote out and bankrupt the country" versus "vote in and get swamped by Jihadi rapists."
1. Ludicrous economic scaremongering 2. Hoping the middling sort will take their lead from that nice Mr. Cameron when he tells them what a nice deal he has got 3. Trying to get the vote out of the way as quickly as possible before the voters take an interest in the issues
All are dishonest and cynical. It's remarkable that absolutely no-one is making the traditional 'Europe is our bright future' pitch. That kind of pro-Europeanism is totally dead.
Governments of both stripes seem to be engaged in a conspiracy to discourage saving as much as possible. Whether you try to provide for yourself in retirement with stocks or property, they squeeze more and more. I don't know why we bother to look out for the future if the taxman wants us to splurge it all on current consumption.
I don't know how you figure that out. Osborne has:
- Made pensions more attractive by hugely increasing flexibility on taking money out - Made it practical for pensions to be bequeathed, with advisers talking about long-term inter-generational pensions - Increased ISA allowances - Allowed ISAs to be (effectively) transferred tax-free to a spouse on death rather than automatically ending - Swept away all income tax on the first £1000 of interest for basic-rate tax payers (£500 for 40% taxpayers) - Swept away all income tax on the first £5K of dividend income
I just want to say thanks for all the TITLE suggestions yesterday. If I disappeared suddenly and in apparently ungrateful haste that's because I fell asleep - I'm 7 hours ahead in Bangkok.
We still haven't found a title and its getting desperate and my publishers have nixed THE SHINING CHILD
Sigh.
FWIW the reason this is so hard, probably harder than any pb-ers realise, is that the title has to fit certain criteria
1. It has to suit the genre, upmarket domestic literary thriller. I can't call it THE ILLUMINATI'S LAST AMULET. Neither can I give it a literary fiction title: THE UNBEARABLE LIGHTNESS OF NOVELS
2. Ideally it has to give you a hefty clue as to the subject, and mention a character: child, wife, son, girl, boy, daughter, sister, twins, mother, lover, husband..
3. It has to say "thriller" - give a hint of menace and tension
4. It should be short. Five syllables is considered ideal. A brilliant title can break this rule, tho
5. It must me memorable and easily pronounceable, no overly obscure words
6. It must not have been used before, in any significant way - increasingly hard, as 100,000 books are published in the UK alone every year
7. It must not imply the book is horror or romance or chicklit or memoir
I just want to say thanks for all the TITLE suggestions yesterday. If I disappeared suddenly and in apparently ungrateful haste that's because I fell asleep - I'm 7 hours ahead in Bangkok.
We still haven't found a title and its getting desperate and my publishers have nixed THE SHINING CHILD
Sigh.
FWIW the reason this is so hard, probably harder than any pb-ers realise, is that the title has to fit certain criteria
1. It has to suit the genre, upmarket domestic literary thriller. I can't call it THE ILLUMINATI'S LAST AMULET. Neither can I give it a literary fiction title: THE UNBEARABLE LIGHTNESS OF NOVELS
2. Ideally it has to give you a hefty clue as to the subject, and mention a character: child, wife, son, girl, boy, daughter, sister, twins, mother, lover, husband..
3. It has to say "thriller" - give a hint of menace and tension
4. It should be short. Five syllables is considered ideal. A brilliant title can break this rule, tho
5. It must me memorable and easily pronounceable, no overly obscure words
6. It must not have been used before, in any significant way - increasingly hard, as 100,000 books are published in the UK alone every year
7. It must not imply the book is horror or romance or chicklit or memoir
I just want to say thanks for all the TITLE suggestions yesterday. If I disappeared suddenly and in apparently ungrateful haste that's because I fell asleep - I'm 7 hours ahead in Bangkok.
We still haven't found a title and its getting desperate and my publishers have nixed THE SHINING CHILD
Sigh.
FWIW the reason this is so hard, probably harder than any pb-ers realise, is that the title has to fit certain criteria
1. It has to suit the genre, upmarket domestic literary thriller. I can't call it THE ILLUMINATI'S LAST AMULET. Neither can I give it a literary fiction title: THE UNBEARABLE LIGHTNESS OF NOVELS
2. Ideally it has to give you a hefty clue as to the subject, and mention a character: child, wife, son, girl, boy, daughter, sister, twins, mother, lover, husband..
3. It has to say "thriller" - give a hint of menace and tension
4. It should be short. Five syllables is considered ideal. A brilliant title can break this rule, tho
5. It must me memorable and easily pronounceable, no overly obscure words
6. It must not have been used before, in any significant way - increasingly hard, as 100,000 books are published in the UK alone every year
7. It must not imply the book is horror or romance or chicklit or memoir
Apart from that. its easy.
So does "Predicting Politics: A Diary of the Future" work?
One of the problems that the article doesn't deal with is that Labour's right wing doesn't really exist. There is no coherent entity with an underlying and unifying political purpose.
There are some people who identify with Blair, some with Brown and a few others who got into politics to get into government. They are currently unified by their dislike of Corbyn. That's about it.
Someone needs to identify what the right of Labour is for, not against. It's a problem that has infected the whole party BTW not just the right.
If Labour doesn't define what it is for then its opponents will do that for it.
The problem with politics in this country is that we have four conservative parties.
Tories want to turn things back to before New Labour. Corbyn's Labour want to turn things back to before Thatcher. UKIP want to turn things back to before Heath. And the SNP want to turn things back to before Queen Anne.
No-one is looking to the future and, if anything, that is what the right wing of Labour is all about.
I know what you mean but of the four I think the Conservatives are clearly the party who are closest to an optimistic vision for the future (that's consistent with what you just said, I suppose).
It's a key point the Conservatives should think about when choosing their next leader. Cameron is essentially an optimistic politician, as was Blair, as was Thatcher.
I just want to say thanks for all the TITLE suggestions yesterday. If I disappeared suddenly and in apparently ungrateful haste that's because I fell asleep - I'm 7 hours ahead in Bangkok.
We still haven't found a title and its getting desperate and my publishers have nixed THE SHINING CHILD
On-topic: So which impossible things do I believe?:
Perhaps 2 - The Tory pendulum never swung back because of election winning. I don't think Corbynism will get that benefit. Good hope of 3 - Support will drift if Corbyn's party looks inept and dysfunctional for too long and loses too many elections. The centre/right (even soft left) of Labour still need to do the hard miles in defining a new vision and to find an appealing flag bearer to take advantage plus supporters willing to get their hands dirty when required. A slight chance of 5 - It won't be the issue itself so much, but perhaps an issue being approached in such a gauche way by the leadership that a fight can be picked up. Many such events will be defused by U-turns and compromises. Trident, which Corbyn's mandate absolutely entitles him to look at again, could yet be the issue if it spirals in strange directions.
So the plan is 'we need a plan' - something more meaningful than policy documents saying 'we need to do something about this' or 'we need to deliver this service in a new way'. We need something that approaches a credible manifesto. I've had my own small two penneth on other threads - I'll not throw any ideas into this particular one.
I just want to say thanks for all the TITLE suggestions yesterday. If I disappeared suddenly and in apparently ungrateful haste that's because I fell asleep - I'm 7 hours ahead in Bangkok.
We still haven't found a title and its getting desperate and my publishers have nixed THE SHINING CHILD
Sigh.
FWIW the reason this is so hard, probably harder than any pb-ers realise, is that the title has to fit certain criteria
1. It has to suit the genre, upmarket domestic literary thriller. I can't call it THE ILLUMINATI'S LAST AMULET. Neither can I give it a literary fiction title: THE UNBEARABLE LIGHTNESS OF NOVELS
2. Ideally it has to give you a hefty clue as to the subject, and mention a character: child, wife, son, girl, boy, daughter, sister, twins, mother, lover, husband..
3. It has to say "thriller" - give a hint of menace and tension
4. It should be short. Five syllables is considered ideal. A brilliant title can break this rule, tho
5. It must me memorable and easily pronounceable, no overly obscure words
6. It must not have been used before, in any significant way - increasingly hard, as 100,000 books are published in the UK alone every year
7. It must not imply the book is horror or romance or chicklit or memoir
Apart from that. its easy.
A CHILD FORETOLD
That sounds like a subheading for The New Testament
Incidentally, to be on the safe side, if you're a higher-rate taxpayer thinking of making a large pension contribution this tax year, don't leave it too late. There's an outside chance that March 16 (the day of the budget) could be a cut-off date.
Some of us (most of us) aren't in the position to do that - to make large contributions - as we only do so through monthly contributions as part of our paypacket through PAYE/our employer.
It's things like that which are precisely my beef with the whole proposal.
I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that pensions are a complete waste of time and money. The returns aren't great, and increasingly, they look more like a piggy bank for the Chancellor to dip his greasy fingers into, than a savings pot for one's old age.
As for those suggesting that 'anyone thinking of making a large contribution this year, should do so now', Ha Ha Ha. It will simply be 'stolen' in the future.
Incidentally, to be on the safe side, if you're a higher-rate taxpayer thinking of making a large pension contribution this tax year, don't leave it too late. There's an outside chance that March 16 (the day of the budget) could be a cut-off date.
Some of us (most of us) aren't in the position to do that - to make large contributions - as we only do so through monthly contributions as part of our paypacket through PAYE/our employer.
It's things like that which are precisely my beef with the whole proposal.
What proposal? You are jumping the gun.
FWIW I rather doubt that you will be affected by any changes. I think the people most likely to be affected are those making big contributions.
However, if you do have any spare cash, most employer schemes will allow you to make a one-off contribution. Alternatively you can open a SIPP (in addition to your existing scheme) with Hargreaves Lansdown or another reputable provider; usually it takes only a few minutes to apply and will be set up in a couple of days.
I just want to say thanks for all the TITLE suggestions yesterday. If I disappeared suddenly and in apparently ungrateful haste that's because I fell asleep - I'm 7 hours ahead in Bangkok.
We still haven't found a title and its getting desperate and my publishers have nixed THE SHINING CHILD
Sigh.
FWIW the reason this is so hard, probably harder than any pb-ers realise, is that the title has to fit certain criteria
1. It has to suit the genre, upmarket domestic literary thriller. I can't call it THE ILLUMINATI'S LAST AMULET. Neither can I give it a literary fiction title: THE UNBEARABLE LIGHTNESS OF NOVELS
2. Ideally it has to give you a hefty clue as to the subject, and mention a character: child, wife, son, girl, boy, daughter, sister, twins, mother, lover, husband..
3. It has to say "thriller" - give a hint of menace and tension
4. It should be short. Five syllables is considered ideal. A brilliant title can break this rule, tho
5. It must me memorable and easily pronounceable, no overly obscure words
6. It must not have been used before, in any significant way - increasingly hard, as 100,000 books are published in the UK alone every year
7. It must not imply the book is horror or romance or chicklit or memoir
Apart from that. its easy.
So does "Predicting Politics: A Diary of the Future" work?
'' these are the indicators of an excellent chancellor and a country that is doing well?
Many tory MPs will have been unnerved by a piece in the Mail over the week-end calling him the red chancellor.
Now we have this Google thing and his McCavity non-appearance. Soon we will have a thoroughly Brownite budget accompanied by news he is off target on borrowing.
It is becoming increasingly clear that everything is up for mortgage to get him to the leadership. That is the 'penny' that is dropping.
This revelation is behind number 10s decision to let him twist in the wind on Google. He is on probation.
I just want to say thanks for all the TITLE suggestions yesterday. If I disappeared suddenly and in apparently ungrateful haste that's because I fell asleep - I'm 7 hours ahead in Bangkok.
We still haven't found a title and its getting desperate and my publishers have nixed THE SHINING CHILD
Sigh.
FWIW the reason this is so hard, probably harder than any pb-ers realise, is that the title has to fit certain criteria
1. It has to suit the genre, upmarket domestic literary thriller. I can't call it THE ILLUMINATI'S LAST AMULET. Neither can I give it a literary fiction title: THE UNBEARABLE LIGHTNESS OF NOVELS
2. Ideally it has to give you a hefty clue as to the subject, and mention a character: child, wife, son, girl, boy, daughter, sister, twins, mother, lover, husband..
3. It has to say "thriller" - give a hint of menace and tension
4. It should be short. Five syllables is considered ideal. A brilliant title can break this rule, tho
5. It must me memorable and easily pronounceable, no overly obscure words
6. It must not have been used before, in any significant way - increasingly hard, as 100,000 books are published in the UK alone every year
7. It must not imply the book is horror or romance or chicklit or memoir
Apart from that. its easy.
A CHILD FORETOLD
That sounds like a subheading for The New Testament
I just want to say thanks for all the TITLE suggestions yesterday. If I disappeared suddenly and in apparently ungrateful haste that's because I fell asleep - I'm 7 hours ahead in Bangkok.
We still haven't found a title and its getting desperate and my publishers have nixed THE SHINING CHILD
Sigh.
FWIW the reason this is so hard, probably harder than any pb-ers realise, is that the title has to fit certain criteria
1. It has to suit the genre, upmarket domestic literary thriller. I can't call it THE ILLUMINATI'S LAST AMULET. Neither can I give it a literary fiction title: THE UNBEARABLE LIGHTNESS OF NOVELS
2. Ideally it has to give you a hefty clue as to the subject, and mention a character: child, wife, son, girl, boy, daughter, sister, twins, mother, lover, husband..
3. It has to say "thriller" - give a hint of menace and tension
4. It should be short. Five syllables is considered ideal. A brilliant title can break this rule, tho
5. It must me memorable and easily pronounceable, no overly obscure words
6. It must not have been used before, in any significant way - increasingly hard, as 100,000 books are published in the UK alone every year
7. It must not imply the book is horror or romance or chicklit or memoir
Apart from that. its easy.
A CHILD FORETOLD
That sounds like a subheading for The New Testament
I'm going to take that as a compliment, rather than an accusation of plagiarism.
;-)
But its probably more to do with my spending vast proportions of the last decade counting the leaves of antique Bibles.
I just want to say thanks for all the TITLE suggestions yesterday. If I disappeared suddenly and in apparently ungrateful haste that's because I fell asleep - I'm 7 hours ahead in Bangkok.
We still haven't found a title and its getting desperate and my publishers have nixed THE SHINING CHILD
Sigh.
FWIW the reason this is so hard, probably harder than any pb-ers realise, is that the title has to fit certain criteria
1. It has to suit the genre, upmarket domestic literary thriller. I can't call it THE ILLUMINATI'S LAST AMULET. Neither can I give it a literary fiction title: THE UNBEARABLE LIGHTNESS OF NOVELS
2. Ideally it has to give you a hefty clue as to the subject, and mention a character: child, wife, son, girl, boy, daughter, sister, twins, mother, lover, husband..
3. It has to say "thriller" - give a hint of menace and tension
4. It should be short. Five syllables is considered ideal. A brilliant title can break this rule, tho
5. It must me memorable and easily pronounceable, no overly obscure words
6. It must not have been used before, in any significant way - increasingly hard, as 100,000 books are published in the UK alone every year
7. It must not imply the book is horror or romance or chicklit or memoir
Apart from that. its easy.
I would say the most striking feature of beautiful children (people) are their eyes, and so, if the main character is a beautiful child that has some strange power or has seen something that no one else knows, that would be a good reference
I suggested "My Eyes Have Seen You" but that is a Doors song which is a bit eerie.. it just came to mind "Behind the Childs Eyes" "Your Eyes" from the Nirvana song Scoff, which was about Cobains piercing blue eyes "What He Sees"
I just want to say thanks for all the TITLE suggestions yesterday. If I disappeared suddenly and in apparently ungrateful haste that's because I fell asleep - I'm 7 hours ahead in Bangkok.
We still haven't found a title and its getting desperate and my publishers have nixed THE SHINING CHILD
Sigh.
FWIW the reason this is so hard, probably harder than any pb-ers realise, is that the title has to fit certain criteria
1. It has to suit the genre, upmarket domestic literary thriller. I can't call it THE ILLUMINATI'S LAST AMULET. Neither can I give it a literary fiction title: THE UNBEARABLE LIGHTNESS OF NOVELS
2. Ideally it has to give you a hefty clue as to the subject, and mention a character: child, wife, son, girl, boy, daughter, sister, twins, mother, lover, husband..
3. It has to say "thriller" - give a hint of menace and tension
4. It should be short. Five syllables is considered ideal. A brilliant title can break this rule, tho
5. It must me memorable and easily pronounceable, no overly obscure words
6. It must not have been used before, in any significant way - increasingly hard, as 100,000 books are published in the UK alone every year
7. It must not imply the book is horror or romance or chicklit or memoir
Apart from that. its easy.
So does "Predicting Politics: A Diary of the Future" work?
(this is for my book rather than yours!
There's no hostage (well, not much); it's a collection of my articles here, reviewed against how events turned out, where I got it presciently (or luckily) right, and where I ballsed up spectacularly. So while the articles were all of the future then, it's now a future that's passed.
So it is in essence a diary (I was thinking of 2009-11 as a first instalment), which follows the events of the times but rather than a regular diary looking back, the nature of the articles here was always looking forward.
Don't know whether people would be interested but I thought it was a concept that hadn't been done before and was worth investigating.
My novel is on the long-term back-burner for now until I have more of a reputation.
I just want to say thanks for all the TITLE suggestions yesterday. If I disappeared suddenly and in apparently ungrateful haste that's because I fell asleep - I'm 7 hours ahead in Bangkok.
We still haven't found a title and its getting desperate and my publishers have nixed THE SHINING CHILD
Sigh.
FWIW the reason this is so hard, probably harder than any pb-ers realise, is that the title has to fit certain criteria
1. It has to suit the genre, upmarket domestic literary thriller. I can't call it THE ILLUMINATI'S LAST AMULET. Neither can I give it a literary fiction title: THE UNBEARABLE LIGHTNESS OF NOVELS
2. Ideally it has to give you a hefty clue as to the subject, and mention a character: child, wife, son, girl, boy, daughter, sister, twins, mother, lover, husband..
3. It has to say "thriller" - give a hint of menace and tension
4. It should be short. Five syllables is considered ideal. A brilliant title can break this rule, tho
5. It must me memorable and easily pronounceable, no overly obscure words
6. It must not have been used before, in any significant way - increasingly hard, as 100,000 books are published in the UK alone every year
7. It must not imply the book is horror or romance or chicklit or memoir
I can't help feeling that SeanT has a touch of the David O. Selznick's this morning: his "desperate" struggle to find an actress to play Scarlet O'Hara also had a side effect of garnering massive publicity for his film.
I'm a bit surprised to read that the "Leave" campaign hasn't started yet. I have been delivering leaflets since Friday. They concentrate on how we could use our EU contributions to help fund the NHS. They call Leave "the safe option".
I just want to say thanks for all the TITLE suggestions yesterday. If I disappeared suddenly and in apparently ungrateful haste that's because I fell asleep - I'm 7 hours ahead in Bangkok.
We still haven't found a title and its getting desperate and my publishers have nixed THE SHINING CHILD
Sigh.
FWIW the reason this is so hard, probably harder than any pb-ers realise, is that the title has to fit certain criteria
1. It has to suit the genre, upmarket domestic literary thriller. I can't call it THE ILLUMINATI'S LAST AMULET. Neither can I give it a literary fiction title: THE UNBEARABLE LIGHTNESS OF NOVELS
2. Ideally it has to give you a hefty clue as to the subject, and mention a character: child, wife, son, girl, boy, daughter, sister, twins, mother, lover, husband..
3. It has to say "thriller" - give a hint of menace and tension
4. It should be short. Five syllables is considered ideal. A brilliant title can break this rule, tho
5. It must me memorable and easily pronounceable, no overly obscure words
6. It must not have been used before, in any significant way - increasingly hard, as 100,000 books are published in the UK alone every year
7. It must not imply the book is horror or romance or chicklit or memoir
Apart from that. its easy.
So does "Predicting Politics: A Diary of the Future" work?
(this is for my book rather than yours!
There's no hostage (well, not much); it's a collection of my articles here, reviewed against how events turned out, where I got it presciently (or luckily) right, and where I ballsed up spectacularly. So while the articles were all of the future then, it's now a future that's passed.
So it is in essence a diary (I was thinking of 2009-11 as a first instalment), which follows the events of the times but rather than a regular diary looking back, the nature of the articles here was always looking forward.
Don't know whether people would be interested but I thought it was a concept that hadn't been done before and was worth investigating.
My novel is on the long-term back-burner for now until I have more of a reputation.
Advice on publishing gratefully received.
Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future.
'Even if Remain miss most of their kicks, the longer Leave stay off the field the harder it will be to shape the game.'
Remain is using all its ammo up before the campaign has started and allowing Leave to come up with comprehensive answers.
Meanwhile voters get a daily reminder on their TV screens of what a mess the EU is,no wonder Cameron wants to have the vote in June.
Whilst your average voter may not understand the intricacies of the EU they do understand that the only way to return power to our parliament and put a stop to uncontrolled immigration is to vote Leave.
I just want to say thanks for all the TITLE suggestions yesterday. If I disappeared suddenly and in apparently ungrateful haste that's because I fell asleep - I'm 7 hours ahead in Bangkok.
We still haven't found a title and its getting desperate and my publishers have nixed THE SHINING CHILD
Sigh.
FWIW the reason this is so hard, probably harder than any pb-ers realise, is that the title has to fit certain criteria
1. It has to suit the genre, upmarket domestic literary thriller. I can't call it THE ILLUMINATI'S LAST AMULET. Neither can I give it a literary fiction title: THE UNBEARABLE LIGHTNESS OF NOVELS
2. Ideally it has to give you a hefty clue as to the subject, and mention a character: child, wife, son, girl, boy, daughter, sister, twins, mother, lover, husband..
3. It has to say "thriller" - give a hint of menace and tension
4. It should be short. Five syllables is considered ideal. A brilliant title can break this rule, tho
5. It must me memorable and easily pronounceable, no overly obscure words
6. It must not have been used before, in any significant way - increasingly hard, as 100,000 books are published in the UK alone every year
7. It must not imply the book is horror or romance or chicklit or memoir
Apart from that. its easy.
The Only Child
Been used. Also sounds like a self help book for parents.
I'm being brutal here cause that's what my publishers do to me. Dismiss my ideas with a single phrase. Bastards!
I just want to say thanks for all the TITLE suggestions yesterday. If I disappeared suddenly and in apparently ungrateful haste that's because I fell asleep - I'm 7 hours ahead in Bangkok.
We still haven't found a title and its getting desperate and my publishers have nixed THE SHINING CHILD
Sigh.
FWIW the reason this is so hard, probably harder than any pb-ers realise, is that the title has to fit certain criteria
1. It has to suit the genre, upmarket domestic literary thriller. I can't call it THE ILLUMINATI'S LAST AMULET. Neither can I give it a literary fiction title: THE UNBEARABLE LIGHTNESS OF NOVELS
2. Ideally it has to give you a hefty clue as to the subject, and mention a character: child, wife, son, girl, boy, daughter, sister, twins, mother, lover, husband..
3. It has to say "thriller" - give a hint of menace and tension
4. It should be short. Five syllables is considered ideal. A brilliant title can break this rule, tho
5. It must me memorable and easily pronounceable, no overly obscure words
6. It must not have been used before, in any significant way - increasingly hard, as 100,000 books are published in the UK alone every year
7. It must not imply the book is horror or romance or chicklit or memoir
Apart from that. its easy.
The Only Child
Been used. Also sounds like a self help book for parents.
I'm being brutal here cause that's what my publishers do to me. Dismiss my ideas with a single phrase. Bastards!
Incidentally, to be on the safe side, if you're a higher-rate taxpayer thinking of making a large pension contribution this tax year, don't leave it too late. There's an outside chance that March 16 (the day of the budget) could be a cut-off date.
Some of us (most of us) aren't in the position to do that - to make large contributions - as we only do so through monthly contributions as part of our paypacket through PAYE/our employer.
It's things like that which are precisely my beef with the whole proposal.
The one thing my employer allows me to do (Should I wish), and others in this firm is to put more money into our pension pots. It's your money, and you aren't asking your firm for extra. Obviously you can't ask your employer to contribute more than say your 5% match - well you could, but thats a whole another story.
This doesn't affect me personally but I know others in my company have put more into their pots in 4th Quarter 2015.
Ask your HR/payroll/MD if you can put in more than the normal 5?% this next couple of months. It's not an unreasonable request. Of course your take home for the month will be slightly less, but c'est la vie.
This isn't asking your co "Can I set up a Limited company instead of being PAYE"
Governments of both stripes seem to be engaged in a conspiracy to discourage saving as much as possible. Whether you try to provide for yourself in retirement with stocks or property, they squeeze more and more. I don't know why we bother to look out for the future if the taxman wants us to splurge it all on current consumption.
I don't know how you figure that out. Osborne has:
- Made pensions more attractive by hugely increasing flexibility on taking money out - Made it practical for pensions to be bequeathed, with advisers talking about long-term inter-generational pensions - Increased ISA allowances - Allowed ISAs to be (effectively) transferred tax-free to a spouse on death rather than automatically ending - Swept away all income tax on the first £1000 of interest for basic-rate tax payers (£500 for 40% taxpayers) - Swept away all income tax on the first £5K of dividend income
Hardly discouraging saving!
Income tax cuts don't encourage saving any more than consumption. Flexibility to do reckless things don't count for nowt. And I'm worried about my retirement, not passing cash on! So you're left with the ISA changes, what pale in comparison to the BTL hammering and the supposed pension relief hammering thats coming.
If you want something really controversial that'll push up the sales - and your chances of ending up headless in an orange jumpsuit I think you should introduce the unmentionable. (Maybe your baddie already is). I vote for:
I just want to say thanks for all the TITLE suggestions yesterday. If I disappeared suddenly and in apparently ungrateful haste that's because I fell asleep - I'm 7 hours ahead in Bangkok.
We still haven't found a title and its getting desperate and my publishers have nixed THE SHINING CHILD
Sigh.
FWIW the reason this is so hard, probably harder than any pb-ers realise, is that the title has to fit certain criteria
1. It has to suit the genre, upmarket domestic literary thriller. I can't call it THE ILLUMINATI'S LAST AMULET. Neither can I give it a literary fiction title: THE UNBEARABLE LIGHTNESS OF NOVELS
2. Ideally it has to give you a hefty clue as to the subject, and mention a character: child, wife, son, girl, boy, daughter, sister, twins, mother, lover, husband..
3. It has to say "thriller" - give a hint of menace and tension
4. It should be short. Five syllables is considered ideal. A brilliant title can break this rule, tho
5. It must me memorable and easily pronounceable, no overly obscure words
6. It must not have been used before, in any significant way - increasingly hard, as 100,000 books are published in the UK alone every year
7. It must not imply the book is horror or romance or chicklit or memoir
I just want to say thanks for all the TITLE suggestions yesterday. If I disappeared suddenly and in apparently ungrateful haste that's because I fell asleep - I'm 7 hours ahead in Bangkok.
We still haven't found a title and its getting desperate and my publishers have nixed THE SHINING CHILD
Sigh.
FWIW the reason this is so hard, probably harder than any pb-ers realise, is that the title has to fit certain criteria
1. It has to suit the genre, upmarket domestic literary thriller. I can't call it THE ILLUMINATI'S LAST AMULET. Neither can I give it a literary fiction title: THE UNBEARABLE LIGHTNESS OF NOVELS
2. Ideally it has to give you a hefty clue as to the subject, and mention a character: child, wife, son, girl, boy, daughter, sister, twins, mother, lover, husband..
3. It has to say "thriller" - give a hint of menace and tension
4. It should be short. Five syllables is considered ideal. A brilliant title can break this rule, tho
5. It must me memorable and easily pronounceable, no overly obscure words
6. It must not have been used before, in any significant way - increasingly hard, as 100,000 books are published in the UK alone every year
7. It must not imply the book is horror or romance or chicklit or memoir
Apart from that. its easy.
I would say the most striking feature of beautiful children (people) are their eyes, and so, if the main character is a beautiful child that has some strange power or has seen something that no one else knows, that would be a good reference
I suggested "My Eyes Have Seen You" but that is a Doors song which is a bit eerie.. it just came to mind "Behind the Childs Eyes" "Your Eyes" from the Nirvana song Scoff, which was about Cobains piercing blue eyes "What He Sees"
Sorry if these are crapola!
Hmm. I do like the "eyes" thing. The boy does have luminously beautiful violet-blue eyes (a fact which actually becomes a plot-point)
I just want to say thanks for all the TITLE suggestions yesterday. If I disappeared suddenly and in apparently ungrateful haste that's because I fell asleep - I'm 7 hours ahead in Bangkok.
We still haven't found a title and its getting desperate and my publishers have nixed THE SHINING CHILD
Sigh.
FWIW the reason this is so hard, probably harder than any pb-ers realise, is that the title has to fit certain criteria
1. It has to suit the genre, upmarket domestic literary thriller. I can't call it THE ILLUMINATI'S LAST AMULET. Neither can I give it a literary fiction title: THE UNBEARABLE LIGHTNESS OF NOVELS
2. Ideally it has to give you a hefty clue as to the subject, and mention a character: child, wife, son, girl, boy, daughter, sister, twins, mother, lover, husband..
3. It has to say "thriller" - give a hint of menace and tension
4. It should be short. Five syllables is considered ideal. A brilliant title can break this rule, tho
5. It must me memorable and easily pronounceable, no overly obscure words
6. It must not have been used before, in any significant way - increasingly hard, as 100,000 books are published in the UK alone every year
7. It must not imply the book is horror or romance or chicklit or memoir
Apart from that. its easy.
I would say the most striking feature of beautiful children (people) are their eyes, and so, if the main character is a beautiful child that has some strange power or has seen something that no one else knows, that would be a good reference
I suggested "My Eyes Have Seen You" but that is a Doors song which is a bit eerie.. it just came to mind "Behind the Childs Eyes" "Your Eyes" from the Nirvana song Scoff, which was about Cobains piercing blue eyes "What He Sees"
Sorry if these are crapola!
Hmm. I do like the "eyes" thing. The boy does have luminously beautiful violet-blue eyes (a fact which actually becomes a plot-point)
I just want to say thanks for all the TITLE suggestions yesterday. If I disappeared suddenly and in apparently ungrateful haste that's because I fell asleep - I'm 7 hours ahead in Bangkok.
We still haven't found a title and its getting desperate and my publishers have nixed THE SHINING CHILD
Sigh.
FWIW the reason this is so hard, probably harder than any pb-ers realise, is that the title has to fit certain criteria
1. It has to suit the genre, upmarket domestic literary thriller. I can't call it THE ILLUMINATI'S LAST AMULET. Neither can I give it a literary fiction title: THE UNBEARABLE LIGHTNESS OF NOVELS
2. Ideally it has to give you a hefty clue as to the subject, and mention a character: child, wife, son, girl, boy, daughter, sister, twins, mother, lover, husband..
3. It has to say "thriller" - give a hint of menace and tension
4. It should be short. Five syllables is considered ideal. A brilliant title can break this rule, tho
5. It must me memorable and easily pronounceable, no overly obscure words
6. It must not have been used before, in any significant way - increasingly hard, as 100,000 books are published in the UK alone every year
7. It must not imply the book is horror or romance or chicklit or memoir
Apart from that. its easy.
Apologies if these are just word bingo, but worth a pop:
The Innocent's Foretelling As Destiny Approaches X's puppeteer / Puppeteers
An interesting concept, my only cold water would be my reaction to Hugo Rifkinds collection of My Week. I recalled maybe 15% of the context to his jokes.
I wouldnt buy it again. Or even finished it. And I'm a fan of his.
Why you made your predictions is the interesting bit, and how they'd be useful again sounds a great primer for political journalists.
I just want to say thanks for all the TITLE suggestions yesterday. If I disappeared suddenly and in apparently ungrateful haste that's because I fell asleep - I'm 7 hours ahead in Bangkok.
We still haven't found a title and its getting desperate and my publishers have nixed THE SHINING CHILD
Sigh.
FWIW the reason this is so hard, probably harder than any pb-ers realise, is that the title has to fit certain criteria
1. It has to suit the genre, upmarket domestic literary thriller. I can't call it THE ILLUMINATI'S LAST AMULET. Neither can I give it a literary fiction title: THE UNBEARABLE LIGHTNESS OF NOVELS
2. Ideally it has to give you a hefty clue as to the subject, and mention a character: child, wife, son, girl, boy, daughter, sister, twins, mother, lover, husband..
3. It has to say "thriller" - give a hint of menace and tension
4. It should be short. Five syllables is considered ideal. A brilliant title can break this rule, tho
5. It must me memorable and easily pronounceable, no overly obscure words
6. It must not have been used before, in any significant way - increasingly hard, as 100,000 books are published in the UK alone every year
7. It must not imply the book is horror or romance or chicklit or memoir
Apart from that. its easy.
So does "Predicting Politics: A Diary of the Future" work?
(this is for my book rather than yours!
There's no hostage (well, not much); it's a collection of my articles here, reviewed against how events turned out, where I got it presciently (or luckily) right, and where I ballsed up spectacularly. So while the articles were all of the future then, it's now a future that's passed.
So it is in essence a diary (I was thinking of 2009-11 as a first instalment), which follows the events of the times but rather than a regular diary looking back, the nature of the articles here was always looking forward.
Don't know whether people would be interested but I thought it was a concept that hadn't been done before and was worth investigating.
My novel is on the long-term back-burner for now until I have more of a reputation.
I just want to say thanks for all the TITLE suggestions yesterday. If I disappeared suddenly and in apparently ungrateful haste that's because I fell asleep - I'm 7 hours ahead in Bangkok.
We still haven't found a title and its getting desperate and my publishers have nixed THE SHINING CHILD
Sigh.
FWIW the reason this is so hard, probably harder than any pb-ers realise, is that the title has to fit certain criteria
1. It has to suit the genre, upmarket domestic literary thriller. I can't call it THE ILLUMINATI'S LAST AMULET. Neither can I give it a literary fiction title: THE UNBEARABLE LIGHTNESS OF NOVELS
2. Ideally it has to give you a hefty clue as to the subject, and mention a character: child, wife, son, girl, boy, daughter, sister, twins, mother, lover, husband..
3. It has to say "thriller" - give a hint of menace and tension
4. It should be short. Five syllables is considered ideal. A brilliant title can break this rule, tho
5. It must me memorable and easily pronounceable, no overly obscure words
6. It must not have been used before, in any significant way - increasingly hard, as 100,000 books are published in the UK alone every year
7. It must not imply the book is horror or romance or chicklit or memoir
Apart from that. its easy.
I would say the most striking feature of beautiful children (people) are their eyes, and so, if the main character is a beautiful child that has some strange power or has seen something that no one else knows, that would be a good reference
I suggested "My Eyes Have Seen You" but that is a Doors song which is a bit eerie.. it just came to mind "Behind the Childs Eyes" "Your Eyes" from the Nirvana song Scoff, which was about Cobains piercing blue eyes "What He Sees"
Sorry if these are crapola!
Hmm. I do like the "eyes" thing. The boy does have luminously beautiful violet-blue eyes (a fact which actually becomes a plot-point)
Interesting... ta.....
THE NIGHTSHADE EYES
Too horror and weird
What conveys thriller and not horror then? I don't even know what the plots about.
I just want to say thanks for all the TITLE suggestions yesterday. If I disappeared suddenly and in apparently ungrateful haste that's because I fell asleep - I'm 7 hours ahead in Bangkok.
We still haven't found a title and its getting desperate and my publishers have nixed THE SHINING CHILD
Sigh.
FWIW the reason this is so hard, probably harder than any pb-ers realise, is that the title has to fit certain criteria
1. It has to suit the genre, upmarket domestic literary thriller. I can't call it THE ILLUMINATI'S LAST AMULET. Neither can I give it a literary fiction title: THE UNBEARABLE LIGHTNESS OF NOVELS
2. Ideally it has to give you a hefty clue as to the subject, and mention a character: child, wife, son, girl, boy, daughter, sister, twins, mother, lover, husband..
3. It has to say "thriller" - give a hint of menace and tension
4. It should be short. Five syllables is considered ideal. A brilliant title can break this rule, tho
5. It must me memorable and easily pronounceable, no overly obscure words
6. It must not have been used before, in any significant way - increasingly hard, as 100,000 books are published in the UK alone every year
7. It must not imply the book is horror or romance or chicklit or memoir
Apart from that. its easy.
So does "Predicting Politics: A Diary of the Future" work?
(this is for my book rather than yours!
There's no hostage (well, not much); it's a collection of my articles here, reviewed against how events turned out, where I got it presciently (or luckily) right, and where I ballsed up spectacularly. So while the articles were all of the future then, it's now a future that's passed.
So it is in essence a diary (I was thinking of 2009-11 as a first instalment), which follows the events of the times but rather than a regular diary looking back, the nature of the articles here was always looking forward.
Don't know whether people would be interested but I thought it was a concept that hadn't been done before and was worth investigating.
My novel is on the long-term back-burner for now until I have more of a reputation.
Advice on publishing gratefully received.
Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future.
Comments
From Alastair's article, I particularly liked "For the pendulum to swing back, someone is going to need to give it a yank.". But who, and how?
History strongly suggests that, in cases like this, yanking back the pendulum involves inspirational leadership, and a sustained effort by a team of people over a period of years. Just look at the effort that was put into making Labour electable again in the 1990s. In 2016, there's precious little sign of pendulum-yanking activity so far, that's for sure.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35406072
The Remain campaign has three planks -
1. Ludicrous economic scaremongering
2. Hoping the middling sort will take their lead from that nice Mr. Cameron when he tells them what a nice deal he has got
3. Trying to get the vote out of the way as quickly as possible before the voters take an interest in the issues
All are dishonest and cynical. It's remarkable that absolutely no-one is making the traditional 'Europe is our bright future' pitch. That kind of pro-Europeanism is totally dead.
We shall have to see how effective they are.
'Leave are in a dreadful state and way behind the curve. Remain have already got their letters, attack ads, attack lines out there and leaflets through the letterbox.'
Unlike PB,you really think the average voter has even thought about the EU referendum ?
That Tank parking piece posted by Ms Plato is straight out of the Blair playbook. What the cameroons don;t understand is that poor voters HATE taxes on the middle classes. Why? because most poor people aspire to be middle class. They hate to think their reward for all the hard work will be yet another bill from George Osborne.
If I was Leave I'd have Steven Woolfe front and centre. What a poster boy.
There was an article about it the other day. With a Tory majority they can force an election any time
And can you blame them, with Osborne poised to hammer middle class pensions two months after he lets a giant corporation off the hook.
In true Brown McCavity fashion, Osborne was not there to cop the flak of course.
Gordon will be pleased by his protege on that one.
There are some people who identify with Blair, some with Brown and a few others who got into politics to get into government. They are currently unified by their dislike of Corbyn. That's about it.
Someone needs to identify what the right of Labour is for, not against. It's a problem that has infected the whole party BTW not just the right.
One of the many interesting things about this Tory social justice caucus is who in the party has joined it… https://t.co/5YgZ16mLSA
Cameroon apologist warns striving middle class posters to get in now to avoid swingeing tax increases from......erm......Cameron.
you couldn;t make it up.
Still, I think the penny is starting to drop in the tory party.
It could still be close and may come down to just a few hundred thousand votes (which sounds a lot but really isn't in a nationwide referendum) so every vote counts.
#Schengen states with border controls in place: Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Norway, Sweden https://t.co/zGoTHE36g6
Oh please, pull the other one
Corbyn must be under an incredible amount of stress. He's not young. He's never prepared for (or maybe even wanted) this job. If election results this year go as badly as some people expect, I think there must be a good chance he'll realise he's not up to it and step down. He can probably be reasonably confident that the existing membership will elect someone he'd find acceptable and his endorsement might carry a lot of weight.
Small landlord - bad, tax avoiding spivvy property corporation - good.
Small business - bad, tax avoiding internet giant - good.
And so on. People do notice what he's up to.
Tories want to turn things back to before New Labour.
Corbyn's Labour want to turn things back to before Thatcher.
UKIP want to turn things back to before Heath.
And the SNP want to turn things back to before Queen Anne.
No-one is looking to the future and, if anything, that is what the right wing of Labour is all about.
I'm not sure what penny you are referring to. Within the Conservative Party, and indeed throughout the world, Osborne is regarded as an excellent Chancellor, and the UK as one of the few bright spots amongst leading economies.
Jeremy Corbyn releases #australiaday message https://t.co/8B4gOMcgnP
Right now Leave are allowing Remain to dominate the pitch, aiming balls through the goalposts one after the other, with little coherent opposition to stop them.
Even if Remain miss most of their kicks, the longer Leave stay off the field the harder it will be to shape the game.
What I do disagree with is where it leads Conservatives down the path that taxing the middle-class and redistributing income to low earners is the answer.
When people say the Conservatives are for the rich they are talking about corporation tax cuts, hedge fund donations, privatisations that benefit financial institutions, side-stepping any high-end wealth taxes and big business attitudes to the EU and immigration.
They are not talking about taxes on middle earners or inheritance tax on the main family home.
CR, that is rubbish I'm afraid.
Where middle earners lose out under Conservative (actually all) governments is in the tightening up of loopholes and boons.
My taxes will be increasing this year due to the tightening up of the previously somewhat farcical company ownership/dividend laxity. I'm not moaning. It is correcting something that was previously unfair. And as it is being done at the same time as decreasing CT, it is sensible and pretty difficult to argue against. It is also being executed under a background of public expenditure cuts. This isn't tax and spend Labour, who want to burden the m/c to increase public expenditure as a % of GDP.
Reducing the huge tax relief on pension contributions is only correcting another, albeit long-lived, middle-class boon.
And on IHT, you're talking about the party that has increased the threshold.
To be honest, you've become such a Tory naysayer that I can't imagine what Conservative government you'd have supported since 1832.
Reducing (absolute) poverty grows the economy and reduces in inequities in society. I only trust the Tory party to do this in a way that is least destructive of private wealth and economic outlook. Especially when it is done by increasing wage packets, employment figures and decreasing reliance on in work benefits.
Sometimes you have to dance with the one who brought you.
For an early election, there needs to be:
- a two-thirds vote in parliament for a dissolution, or
- repeal of the FTPA, or
- a vote of no confidence in the govt and no new government within a fortnight.
Of those, repealing the FTPA is possible although it may need the Parliament Act if Labour decides to oppose it. Doing so would flag up the Tories' intent to go early, thereby losing the initiative anyway. There may also be some Tory rebels who think it's quite a good piece of legislation and the government's majority is small.
The Vote of No Confidence option is too clever by half. It's a nice tactic until you think about how it'll look to Joe Public when the Tories No Confidence their own government. Labour's attack lines write themselves (which may be as well because Milne probably couldn't do it).
So it's down to tabling a motion for an early dissolution and daring Labour to vote against it. Which they almost certainly would if the Conservatives wanted it.
However, there's always a chance that someone could miscalculate and the new Tory leader may well want to seek a mandate so we certainly shouldn't rule out the possibility.
Torn between admiring @SpenceLivermore's clarity re EdM now & deploring lack thereof at time https://t.co/s0UI7oI8Az https://t.co/oHHOKjN6gl
I don't buy that argument. Every vote goes to creating a mandate for a person, party or proposal (or against). Voting reform and regional governments are off the table because of the size of the majorities they went down by. Scottish independence is not for the same reason but from the other side of the coin.
Where middle earners lose out under Conservative (actually all) governments is in the tightening up of loopholes and boons.
My taxes will be increasing this year due to the tightening up of the previously somewhat farcical company ownership/dividend laxity. I'm not moaning. It is correcting something that was previously unfair. And as it is being done at the same time as decreasing CT, it is sensible and pretty difficult to argue against. It is also being executed under a background of public expenditure cuts. This isn't tax and spend Labour, who want to burden the m/c to increase public expenditure as a % of GDP.
Reducing the huge tax relief on pension contributions is only correcting another, albeit long-lived, middle-class boon.
And on IHT, you're talking about the party that has increased the threshold.
To be honest, you've become such a Tory naysayer that I can't imagine what Conservative government you'd have supported since 1832.
Reducing (absolute) poverty grows the economy and reduces in inequities in society. I only trust the Tory party to do this in a way that is least destructive of private wealth and economic outlook. Especially when it is done by increasing wage packets, employment figures and decreasing reliance on in work benefits.
Sometimes you have to dance with the one who brought you.
I stopped reading when you said 'that's rubbish'.
If you want people to engage with the substance of your argument my tip would be to ditch how they make you feel and focus on your alternative interpretation of the facts.
It's things like that which are precisely my beef with the whole proposal.
Where middle earners lose out under Conservative (actually all) governments is in the tightening up of loopholes and boons.
My taxes will be increasing this year due to the tightening up of the previously somewhat farcical company ownership/dividend laxity. I'm not moaning. It is correcting something that was previously unfair. And as it is being done at the same time as decreasing CT, it is sensible and pretty difficult to argue against. It is also being executed under a background of public expenditure cuts. This isn't tax and spend Labour, who want to burden the m/c to increase public expenditure as a % of GDP.
Reducing the huge tax relief on pension contributions is only correcting another, albeit long-lived, middle-class boon.
And on IHT, you're talking about the party that has increased the threshold.
Sometimes you have to dance with the one who brought you.
What will cost society most is when everyone stops saving for retirement because theres little incentive to do so, and government has to provide for everyone in old age. UK savings rate has been in long term decline for years. We should be taking measures to encourage more saving, not reverse.
When there is no deficit and the debt is in reverse (i.e. when the economy has grown to an extent that can comfortably support us as a nation), incentivising saving would make more sense.
Until then, all bets are off.
That said, the leave campaign have the backdrop of the migrant crisis to throw back, and I think this spring is going to bring some pretty powerful imagery across Europe as the migrant crisis ramps up.
It is going to be "vote out and bankrupt the country" versus "vote in and get swamped by Jihadi rapists."
Whichever side scares the most will win.
- Made pensions more attractive by hugely increasing flexibility on taking money out
- Made it practical for pensions to be bequeathed, with advisers talking about long-term inter-generational pensions
- Increased ISA allowances
- Allowed ISAs to be (effectively) transferred tax-free to a spouse on death rather than automatically ending
- Swept away all income tax on the first £1000 of interest for basic-rate tax payers (£500 for 40% taxpayers)
- Swept away all income tax on the first £5K of dividend income
Hardly discouraging saving!
Using child implies self help, crap horror or intellectual. I'd not even look at it in WHSmiths.
(this is for my book rather than yours!
It's a key point the Conservatives should think about when choosing their next leader. Cameron is essentially an optimistic politician, as was Blair, as was Thatcher.
Perhaps 2 - The Tory pendulum never swung back because of election winning. I don't think Corbynism will get that benefit.
Good hope of 3 - Support will drift if Corbyn's party looks inept and dysfunctional for too long and loses too many elections. The centre/right (even soft left) of Labour still need to do the hard miles in defining a new vision and to find an appealing flag bearer to take advantage plus supporters willing to get their hands dirty when required.
A slight chance of 5 - It won't be the issue itself so much, but perhaps an issue being approached in such a gauche way by the leadership that a fight can be picked up. Many such events will be defused by U-turns and compromises. Trident, which Corbyn's mandate absolutely entitles him to look at again, could yet be the issue if it spirals in strange directions.
So the plan is 'we need a plan' - something more meaningful than policy documents saying 'we need to do something about this' or 'we need to deliver this service in a new way'. We need something that approaches a credible manifesto. I've had my own small two penneth on other threads - I'll not throw any ideas into this particular one.
As for those suggesting that 'anyone thinking of making a large contribution this year, should do so now', Ha Ha Ha. It will simply be 'stolen' in the future.
A Little Knowledge..
(as in "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing").
FWIW I rather doubt that you will be affected by any changes. I think the people most likely to be affected are those making big contributions.
However, if you do have any spare cash, most employer schemes will allow you to make a one-off contribution. Alternatively you can open a SIPP (in addition to your existing scheme) with Hargreaves Lansdown or another reputable provider; usually it takes only a few minutes to apply and will be set up in a couple of days.
How about History Repeats Itself, Predicting The Future?
'David Nott – ‘Indiana Jones of surgery’ – wins Robert Burns Humanitarian Award 2016'
http://tinyurl.com/h9kxzj2
You can bung a few quid his way if you feel like it.
http://tinyurl.com/zcyq9e5
"The UK Labour party’s farewell to the working class
The people around Corbyn think of poor white Britons as improbably romantic heroes"
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/01fb068c-c348-11e5-808f-8231cd71622e.html?ftcamp=published_links/rss/comment/feed//product#axzz3yLeikz6I
Many tory MPs will have been unnerved by a piece in the Mail over the week-end calling him the red chancellor.
Now we have this Google thing and his McCavity non-appearance. Soon we will have a thoroughly Brownite budget accompanied by news he is off target on borrowing.
It is becoming increasingly clear that everything is up for mortgage to get him to the leadership. That is the 'penny' that is dropping.
This revelation is behind number 10s decision to let him twist in the wind on Google. He is on probation.
;-)
But its probably more to do with my spending vast proportions of the last decade counting the leaves of antique Bibles.
I suggested "My Eyes Have Seen You" but that is a Doors song which is a bit eerie.. it just came to mind
"Behind the Childs Eyes"
"Your Eyes" from the Nirvana song Scoff, which was about Cobains piercing blue eyes
"What He Sees"
Sorry if these are crapola!
So it is in essence a diary (I was thinking of 2009-11 as a first instalment), which follows the events of the times but rather than a regular diary looking back, the nature of the articles here was always looking forward.
Don't know whether people would be interested but I thought it was a concept that hadn't been done before and was worth investigating.
My novel is on the long-term back-burner for now until I have more of a reputation.
Advice on publishing gratefully received.
I'm a bit surprised to read that the "Leave" campaign hasn't started yet. I have been delivering leaflets since Friday. They concentrate on how we could use our EU contributions to help fund the NHS. They call Leave "the safe option".
Pristine has that slightly sinister quality. Almost too perfect to be true. Midwitch Cuckoos territory.
'Even if Remain miss most of their kicks, the longer Leave stay off the field the harder it will be to shape the game.'
Remain is using all its ammo up before the campaign has started and allowing Leave to come up with comprehensive answers.
Meanwhile voters get a daily reminder on their TV screens of what a mess the EU is,no wonder Cameron wants to have the vote in June.
Whilst your average voter may not understand the intricacies of the EU they do understand that the only way to return power to our parliament and put a stop to uncontrolled immigration is to vote Leave.
This doesn't affect me personally but I know others in my company have put more into their pots in 4th Quarter 2015.
Ask your HR/payroll/MD if you can put in more than the normal 5?% this next couple of months. It's not an unreasonable request. Of course your take home for the month will be slightly less, but c'est la vie.
This isn't asking your co "Can I set up a Limited company instead of being PAYE"
The Spawn Of Allah
(p.s. I just like the word spawn :-) )
HIS LULLABY EYES
http://www.thenational.scot/comment/the-national-view-powers-at-too-high-a-cost-must-be-rejected.12839?utm_medium=social&utm_source=Twitter&utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_term=Autofeed#link_time=1453791883
The Innocent's Foretelling
As Destiny Approaches
X's puppeteer / Puppeteers
I wouldnt buy it again. Or even finished it. And I'm a fan of his.
Why you made your predictions is the interesting bit, and how they'd be useful again sounds a great primer for political journalists.