I watched CNN and their bias was humongous. Not a fig given for freedom of speech and these are the same MSM people and assembled who assured us over many months that Trump had no chance, would implode any week soon etc. etc. MSBC and BBC, Chuck Todd/CNBC, similarly. It seems to me that the MSM are having a massive fail on all fronts.
CNN were a total disgrace. They were willing on trouble, then squarely 100% blamed Trump for everything.
But then to be honest, the American MSM coverage of places like Ferguson was a disgrace too. Even then an independent report of the situation came out showing that the police officer had done no wrong and backed up by actual witnesses (not twitter rumours), they were still saying but but but...no but's, in that case a man robbed a store and then when stopped by a police officer attempted to take his gun.
"We will grow the economy" Labour Mcdonnell on r4today.
The magic money tree.
Osborne currently harvesting the low hanging fruit of that tree.
Osborne is just a minor socialist similar to Darling as CofE.
All we need now is Alanbrooke to post something negative about Osborne and the cry " House" will resound far and wide.
Why would need to do that ?
Back in 2011 my view was seen as somewhat eccentric, now it's becoming the PB consensus. I'm just sitting back enjoying the popcorn.
hmm. one eccentric attracts other eccentrics . The trouble with you guys is that the loathing of Osborne is so deep seated , you cannot consider or post about him it on any form of rational basis.
Au contraire. Most of my Osborne posts start when some tribal Tory says how good he is. It's just simple to point out how average he is and how he has missed just about every goal he has set himself.
Average? Can you name another MP who has cut real terms spending in more years than he has?
Some average lol
Moving the goalposts there. Osborne always said cutting deficit was his priority.
No way Cruz is Trump's running mate. The veep has to defend Trump's positions and Cruz is an ideologue who won't want to lessen purity. Also if Trump goes down in flames, which he will, Cruz will be next in line for 2020.
I'm not talking about Cruz as Trump's GOP running mate; I'm speculating on what could happen if the convention tried to pass over both men. That would be a very different dynamic and one in which I suspect that policy differences wouldn't matter all that much. A coalition of the angry - Tea Partiers and Trumpites - wouldn't need to agree so much on what they like as their shared hatreds.
My guess for Trump's actual running mate, within the GOP, is that it'll come down to the usual balancing considerations - ideally, someone young, female, non-white, southern / south-western and moderate (or as many of those boxes as might be ticked concurrently). I've not really had time to go through the possible options to come up with suggestions.
That said, a bad presidential run doesn't always do for a running-mate's chances; they're usually judged on their own merits.
This budget is about keeping the Conservative party on board.
I therefore expect him to throw out a few chunks of red meat to mark himself out as a "low tax" Conservative. A decent increase in the personal allowance, and a faster than expected rise in the 40p threshold are both possible.
I think he'd like to cut the top rate from 45p to 40p too - along with further cuts in corporation tax - but the optics of that are far too risky. He'll stick to a working people/ middle income people meme - think "does the Daily Mail like it?"
Further cuts in welfare will be used to pay for it.
I previously listed Rubio as having a majority in one state. He doesn't. He has a plurality of delegates in Minnesota (17 out of 38) but not a majority in the American sense i.e. more than everyone else put together. His only majority is in Puerto Rico: a territory, not a state.
If theres to be a stitch up, those rules will be dumped before you can say "sod the electorate".
Oh indeed, but I like to get my facts right!
There is one consequence of the difference though. To amend the rules to include Rubio would probably mean including a lot of other potential candidates; the likes of Ryan and Romney. It's one thing if someone's got four states under their belt but there's little point distinguishing between those who ran and didn't get anywhere and those who didn't run at all.
"We will grow the economy" Labour Mcdonnell on r4today.
The magic money tree.
Osborne currently harvesting the low hanging fruit of that tree.
Osborne is just a minor socialist similar to Darling as CofE.
All we need now is Alanbrooke to post something negative about Osborne and the cry " House" will resound far and wide.
Why would need to do that ?
Back in 2011 my view was seen as somewhat eccentric, now it's becoming the PB consensus. I'm just sitting back enjoying the popcorn.
hmm. one eccentric attracts other eccentrics . The trouble with you guys is that the loathing of Osborne is so deep seated , you cannot consider or post about him it on any form of rational basis.
Au contraire. Most of my Osborne posts start when some tribal Tory says how good he is. It's just simple to point out how average he is and how he has missed just about every goal he has set himself.
Average? Can you name another MP who has cut real terms spending in more years than he has?
Some average lol
Moving the goalposts there. Osborne always said cutting deficit was his priority.
So he's setting ambitious targets, that's a good thing. If he's "average" though then about half our previous Chancellors would have cut real terms spending more than him and half will have done so less. Only if he's on the extreme end of the bell curve and so the antithesis of average would you be unable to name one who's done so less. So name one please, shouldn't be difficult.
As for cutting the deficit, he's cut it by about £100bn and counting and will run a surplus this Parliament. Again how many other Chancellors have cut the deficit by £100bn?
I suspect it's people who can't believe that the Republicans would nominate Cruz or Trump, as both have so many negatives - without realising that Kasich cannot win unless at least one front-runner drops out. Ike him no shorter than 50/1.
I think people are overestimating the chances of a brokered convention and stitch-up.
Just to add, I do think we should keep in the back of our minds the possibility of a Trump-Cruz independent ticket.
It won't happen because one of them, almost certainly Trump, will be nominated. But one of the reasons why one of them will be nominated is the threat that such a ticket would pose and the risk of it happening were there to be a stitch up.
There's been speculation about Trump bolting the convention if his mandate is denied but why would that apply any the less to Cruz? Sure, running-mate isn't that great a prize and he'd have to leave the Republican Party so there might be an effort to stop him running for re-election in Texas under the GOP in 2018 should Trump-Cruz lose (which they would) but he might well win there as an independent too, or he strength in his state might be enough for him to continue as a caucusing Republican
None of which is to say it will happen but those thinking of ways in which the establishment might try to stitch up the nomination for, say, Kasich need to think about what the reaction would be from those passed over.
I hadn't really considered that. Is there enough in it for Cruz, I wonder.
That would be the question but it can also be flipped: if the nomination was taken from under him (even if also from under Trump in a better position), what is Cruz's incentive to stay and rally around that preferred nominee?
There is a middle ground between rallying round stitch up nominee and backing Trump. He would claim the outrage and try to channel it in 2020, without tarring himself with Trump. I think you don't realise how much hardline conservatives hate Trump. Go and read RedState.
That's as maybe but I suspect they hate Washington even more - particularly if it's just picked one of their own over Cruz's greater claim. His get-out would be 'we have no choice and have to make common cause where we can'.
I'm not saying it's a slam-dunk but it'd be a hell of a risk to run for any GOP insider thinking of calling Cruz's bluff.
"We will grow the economy" Labour Mcdonnell on r4today.
The magic money tree.
Osborne currently harvesting the low hanging fruit of that tree.
Osborne is just a minor socialist similar to Darling as CofE.
All we need now is Alanbrooke to post something negative about Osborne and the cry " House" will resound far and wide.
Why would need to do that ?
Back in 2011 my view was seen as somewhat eccentric, now it's becoming the PB consensus. I'm just sitting back enjoying the popcorn.
hmm. one eccentric attracts other eccentrics . The trouble with you guys is that the loathing of Osborne is so deep seated , you cannot consider or post about him it on any form of rational basis.
I don't have any loathing of him, but he's someone that has justified pulling the rug out from people on the breadline in name of deficit reduction, then turns around and gives tax cuts for the wealthy.
The wealthy are paying more taxes not less as a result of Osborne. Since you seem to have never studied economics or learnt about something as fundamental as the Laffer curve, maybe you should research it? Then maybe say what spending should be cut due to the loss of taxes you'd want from raising the tax rate?
"We will grow the economy" Labour Mcdonnell on r4today.
The magic money tree.
Osborne currently harvesting the low hanging fruit of that tree.
Osborne is just a minor socialist similar to Darling as CofE.
All we need now is Alanbrooke to post something negative about Osborne and the cry " House" will resound far and wide.
Why would need to do that ?
Back in 2011 my view was seen as somewhat eccentric, now it's becoming the PB consensus. I'm just sitting back enjoying the popcorn.
hmm. one eccentric attracts other eccentrics . The trouble with you guys is that the loathing of Osborne is so deep seated , you cannot consider or post about him it on any form of rational basis.
I don't have any loathing of him, but he's someone that has justified pulling the rug out from people on the breadline in name of deficit reduction, then turns around and gives tax cuts for the wealthy.
The wealthy are paying more taxes not less as a result of Osborne. Since you seem to have never studied economics or learnt about something as fundamental as the Laffer curve, maybe you should research it? Then maybe say what spending should be cut due to the loss of taxes you'd want from raising the tax rate?
I actually have studied economics and know what a crock the Laffer curve is. But I don't bother talking to people that are rude to me.
Mr. K, my understanding was that the Swedes effectively let everyone who wanted to come (perhaps pre-dating Merkel's deranged pronouncement).
The control and censorship of reporting regarding serious crimes by those claiming to be refugees is deeply concerning.
Cameron's been very good on the migrant crisis.
We disagree on Cameron:
Sir Dirty Politics @HouseOfTraitors 1h1 hour ago ++ BREAKING ++. Immigration Figures
Noises from civil service indicate over 3 MILLION immigrants have not been recorded.
Noises are not sufficient - wait to see the facts.
How does a department that depends on paperwork to count numbers count those who never ask for the paperwork let alone refuse to fill it in..
Mind you I don't believe its that easy to work without an NI number so I can't imagine we have 1 million immigrants who haven't been counted let alone 3 million...
" He [Trump] cannot be stopped now unless he stops himself."
I agree with you David, yet the strange thing is that the likes of Kasich simply refuse to go away and accept that it's all over bar the shouting. Having weakened on Betfair from 10/1 out to around 18/1, he's back into 11/1 this morning. Is it simply a case of fools throwing their money at how they wished it could all have been?
I think there is a Kasich bonus as there was a Rubio bonus. British punters would like the US Republicans to be more reasonable, like the Conservatives It made a little sense when Trump and Cruz were yet to prove themselves as resilient front-runners, but not now that Kasich would be appointed from third I have been betting on Trump and Cruz, and on Kasich only when he was 100/1 before the New Hampshire primary. I sold Kasich too early when he was around 20/1 but as you say he refused to go away
"We will grow the economy" Labour Mcdonnell on r4today.
The magic money tree.
Osborne currently harvesting the low hanging fruit of that tree.
Osborne is just a minor socialist similar to Darling as CofE.
All we need now is Alanbrooke to post something negative about Osborne and the cry " House" will resound far and wide.
Why would need to do that ?
Back in 2011 my view was seen as somewhat eccentric, now it's becoming the PB consensus. I'm just sitting back enjoying the popcorn.
hmm. one eccentric attracts other eccentrics . The trouble with you guys is that the loathing of Osborne is so deep seated , you cannot consider or post about him it on any form of rational basis.
I don't have any loathing of him, but he's someone that has justified pulling the rug out from people on the breadline in name of deficit reduction, then turns around and gives tax cuts for the wealthy.
The wealthy are paying more taxes not less as a result of Osborne. Since you seem to have never studied economics or learnt about something as fundamental as the Laffer curve, maybe you should research it? Then maybe say what spending should be cut due to the loss of taxes you'd want from raising the tax rate?
I actually have studied economics and know what a crock the Laffer curve is. But I don't bother talking to people that are rude to me.
It's not a crock. Takings are up from the wealthy, up in corporation tax, even up in whiskey duties. All due in no small part to cuts in the rate causing increases in the tax take as economics has shown time and again.
Meanwhile your buddies in France who whacked up tax rates even higher have seen a flight from their country to ours so they get less tax and we take even more. Win, win for us.
"We will grow the economy" Labour Mcdonnell on r4today.
The magic money tree.
Osborne currently harvesting the low hanging fruit of that tree.
Osborne is just a minor socialist similar to Darling as CofE.
All we need now is Alanbrooke to post something negative about Osborne and the cry " House" will resound far and wide.
Why would need to do that ?
Back in 2011 my view was seen as somewhat eccentric, now it's becoming the PB consensus. I'm just sitting back enjoying the popcorn.
hmm. one eccentric attracts other eccentrics . The trouble with you guys is that the loathing of Osborne is so deep seated , you cannot consider or post about him it on any form of rational basis.
I don't have any loathing of him, but he's someone that has justified pulling the rug out from people on the breadline in name of deficit reduction, then turns around and gives tax cuts for the wealthy.
The wealthy are paying more taxes not less as a result of Osborne. Since you seem to have never studied economics or learnt about something as fundamental as the Laffer curve, maybe you should research it? Then maybe say what spending should be cut due to the loss of taxes you'd want from raising the tax rate?
I actually have studied economics and know what a crock the Laffer curve is. But I don't bother talking to people that are rude to me.
There is quite a lot of empirical evidence that high marginal tax rates cut economic growth.
Mr. K, my understanding was that the Swedes effectively let everyone who wanted to come (perhaps pre-dating Merkel's deranged pronouncement).
The control and censorship of reporting regarding serious crimes by those claiming to be refugees is deeply concerning.
Cameron's been very good on the migrant crisis.
We disagree on Cameron:
Sir Dirty Politics @HouseOfTraitors 1h1 hour ago ++ BREAKING ++. Immigration Figures
Noises from civil service indicate over 3 MILLION immigrants have not been recorded.
Noises are not sufficient - wait to see the facts.
How does a department that depends on paperwork to count numbers count those who never ask for the paperwork let alone refuse to fill it in..
Mind you I don't believe its that easy to work without an NI number so I can't imagine we have 1 million immigrants who haven't been counted let alone 3 million...
I think the uncounted number means those not recorded in ONS estimates what use survey data not NINO data. That is why NINO data needs to be released but govt is undemocratically blocking it. Media should hammer Cameron on this.
This budget is about keeping the Conservative party on board.
I therefore expect him to throw out a few chunks of red meat to mark himself out as a "low tax" Conservative. A decent increase in the personal allowance, and a faster than expected rise in the 40p threshold are both possible.
I think he'd like to cut the top rate from 45p to 40p too - along with further cuts in corporation tax - but the optics of that are far too risky. He'll stick to a working people/ middle income people meme - think "does the Daily Mail like it?"
Further cuts in welfare will be used to pay for it.
Further cuts to disabled people prove the government is committed to a small state ideology irrespective of the consequences.The £billion more set to come from disabled people is small change to the tax dodgers who should be helping to balance the books.Cameron has already smoothed the way to this proposed cull by reciting the "life-style choice" argument.His family experience must have shown him disablity is anything but a "lifestyle choice".He must know that those of us with progressive,long-term illnesses,are not going to get any better,only worse and stop insulting us with his shoddy attempt at propaganda.Get the money from the Googles of this world.One billion is short change to them.Leave disabled people alone to die peacefully.People like my sister who died of MND.
Returning to last night's by-election post: another dismal display by Labour, this time in Cumbria. Down 10%.
It was almost entirely a swing to Lib Dem in the rural constituency of the new Lib Dem leader who was not in place in 2013 - so I would not characterise it as nationally typical Labour swung 5 per cent to the second-place Lib Dems in Maidenhead which sounds more like a credible local Lib Dem effect to me
Mr. K, my understanding was that the Swedes effectively let everyone who wanted to come (perhaps pre-dating Merkel's deranged pronouncement).
The control and censorship of reporting regarding serious crimes by those claiming to be refugees is deeply concerning.
Cameron's been very good on the migrant crisis.
We disagree on Cameron:
Sir Dirty Politics @HouseOfTraitors 1h1 hour ago ++ BREAKING ++. Immigration Figures
Noises from civil service indicate over 3 MILLION immigrants have not been recorded.
Noises are not sufficient - wait to see the facts.
How does a department that depends on paperwork to count numbers count those who never ask for the paperwork let alone refuse to fill it in..
Mind you I don't believe its that easy to work without an NI number so I can't imagine we have 1 million immigrants who haven't been counted let alone 3 million...
I think the uncounted number means those not recorded in ONS estimates what use survey data not NINO data. That is why NINO data needs to be released but govt is undemocratically blocking it. Media should hammer Cameron on this.
If total NI application numbers are being hidden then yes the media should emphasis it...
A classic example of Osborne meddling in another department just to steal the limelight. Always bad for a large Company when the Finance Director attempts to run the PR and the Operations at the same time.
I haven't read the article but I am in favour of government encouraging the development of new technology. I we don't do it others will. We have become a nation of shopkeepers and estate agents - time to broaden our horizon.
No harm in encouraging but instead of it being the transport dept owning it and being held accountable for its planning and implementation we have Osborne and the Treasury meddling in it. A recipe for mistakes and no one accountable.
"Wales Online reports that the Welsh Liberal Democrats' prospective Assembly candidate for the Rhondda has stepped down citing the local party's inability to compete financially..."
"In previous years the Welsh Party had agreed to underwrite candidate deposits should they be lost, but it seems that the finances no longer stretch to this arrangement. Instead, it has committed to underwriting half of the deposit in each constituency and has recommended that the local party raises the balance. ....... It also seems that the Welsh Party did not decide on this approach until after a significant number of candidates had already been chosen to contest 'no hope' constituencies, so many put themselves forward not knowing the full financial circumstances. "
"We will grow the economy" Labour Mcdonnell on r4today.
The magic money tree.
Osborne currently harvesting the low hanging fruit of that tree.
Osborne is just a minor socialist similar to Darling as CofE.
All we need now is Alanbrooke to post something negative about Osborne and the cry " House" will resound far and wide.
Why would need to do that ?
Back in 2011 my view was seen as somewhat eccentric, now it's becoming the PB consensus. I'm just sitting back enjoying the popcorn.
hmm. one eccentric attracts other eccentrics . The trouble with you guys is that the loathing of Osborne is so deep seated , you cannot consider or post about him it on any form of rational basis.
I don't have any loathing of him, but he's someone that has justified pulling the rug out from people on the breadline in name of deficit reduction, then turns around and gives tax cuts for the wealthy.
The wealthy are paying more taxes not less as a result of Osborne. Since you seem to have never studied economics or learnt about something as fundamental as the Laffer curve, maybe you should research it? Then maybe say what spending should be cut due to the loss of taxes you'd want from raising the tax rate?
I actually have studied economics and know what a crock the Laffer curve is. But I don't bother talking to people that are rude to me.
There is quite a lot of empirical evidence that high marginal tax rates cut economic growth.
Perhaps but to attempts to draw a Laffer curve from real world data has resulted in a random scatter plot. And I don't think there any such evidence for IHT rates.
"We will grow the economy" Labour Mcdonnell on r4today.
The magic money tree.
Osborne currently harvesting the low hanging fruit of that tree.
Osborne is just a minor socialist similar to Darling as CofE.
All we need now is Alanbrooke to post something negative about Osborne and the cry " House" will resound far and wide.
Why would need to do that ?
Back in 2011 my view was seen as somewhat eccentric, now it's becoming the PB consensus. I'm just sitting back enjoying the popcorn.
hmm. one eccentric attracts other eccentrics . The trouble with you guys is that the loathing of Osborne is so deep seated , you cannot consider or post about him it on any form of rational basis.
I don't have any loathing of him, but he's someone that has justified pulling the rug out from people on the breadline in name of deficit reduction, then turns around and gives tax cuts for the wealthy.
The wealthy are paying more taxes not less as a result of Osborne. Since you seem to have never studied economics or learnt about something as fundamental as the Laffer curve, maybe you should research it? Then maybe say what spending should be cut due to the loss of taxes you'd want from raising the tax rate?
I actually have studied economics and know what a crock the Laffer curve is. But I don't bother talking to people that are rude to me.
There is quite a lot of empirical evidence that high marginal tax rates cut economic growth.
Perhaps but to attempts to draw a Laffer curve from real world data has resulted in a random scatter plot. And I don't think there any such evidence for IHT rates.
Surely the big problem with IHT is that the truly rich never pay it, and it falls almost exclusively on the middle and upper middle classes.
"We will grow the economy" Labour Mcdonnell on r4today.
The magic money tree.
Osborne currently harvesting the low hanging fruit of that tree.
Osborne is just a minor socialist similar to Darling as CofE.
All we need now is Alanbrooke to post something negative about Osborne and the cry " House" will resound far and wide.
Why would need to do that ?
Back in 2011 my view was seen as somewhat eccentric, now it's becoming the PB consensus. I'm just sitting back enjoying the popcorn.
hmm. one eccentric attracts other eccentrics . The trouble with you guys is that the loathing of Osborne is so deep seated , you cannot consider or post about him it on any form of rational basis.
I don't have any loathing of him, but he's someone that has justified pulling the rug out from people on the breadline in name of deficit reduction, then turns around and gives tax cuts for the wealthy.
The wealthy are paying more taxes not less as a result of Osborne. Since you seem to have never studied economics or learnt about something as fundamental as the Laffer curve, maybe you should research it? Then maybe say what spending should be cut due to the loss of taxes you'd want from raising the tax rate?
I actually have studied economics and know what a crock the Laffer curve is. But I don't bother talking to people that are rude to me.
There is quite a lot of empirical evidence that high marginal tax rates cut economic growth.
Perhaps but to attempts to draw a Laffer curve from real world data has resulted in a random scatter plot. And I don't think there any such evidence for IHT rates.
Surely the big problem with IHT is that the truly rich never pay it, and it falls almost exclusively on the middle and upper middle classes.
"We will grow the economy" Labour Mcdonnell on r4today.
The magic money tree.
Osborne currently harvesting the low hanging fruit of that tree.
Osborne is just a minor socialist similar to Darling as CofE.
All we need now is Alanbrooke to post something negative about Osborne and the cry " House" will resound far and wide.
Why would need to do that ?
Back in 2011 my view was seen as somewhat eccentric, now it's becoming the PB consensus. I'm just sitting back enjoying the popcorn.
hmm. one eccentric attracts other eccentrics . The trouble with you guys is that the loathing of Osborne is so deep seated , you cannot consider or post about him it on any form of rational basis.
I don't have any loathing of him, but he's someone that has justified pulling the rug out from people on the breadline in name of deficit reduction, then turns around and gives tax cuts for the wealthy.
The wealthy are paying more taxes not less as a result of Osborne. Since you seem to have never studied economics or learnt about something as fundamental as the Laffer curve, maybe you should research it? Then maybe say what spending should be cut due to the loss of taxes you'd want from raising the tax rate?
I actually have studied economics and know what a crock the Laffer curve is. But I don't bother talking to people that are rude to me.
There is quite a lot of empirical evidence that high marginal tax rates cut economic growth.
Perhaps but to attempts to draw a Laffer curve from real world data has resulted in a random scatter plot. And I don't think there any such evidence for IHT rates.
Surely the big problem with IHT is that the truly rich never pay it, and it falls almost exclusively on the middle and upper middle classes.
Yes and it can be an inefficient use of financial resources by pushing people into actions that are not beneficial for the country.
On topic, I mostly agree with David Herdson about the probability of this but I guess the way you'd do it would be to have a scandal or gaffe right before the final primaries, which he then does badly in, and then argue that Trunp had self-destructed and the previous primaries didn't count because the voters didn't know about X. This would be reasonably east to pull off since dislike of Trump covers most of the media-controlling political spectrum, and in any case they'd much rather run a "Trump exploded" story than "Person who we thought was going to win the Republican nomination still going to win the Republican nomination shock".
But then you still have the problem that the next in line is Cruz, who may well be even more unelectable than Trump. At least with Trump you can see him pulling off some kind of bold, shameless, audacious pivot.
I guess the other angle to this is the impact on down-ballot races, but I don't really know how to call that.
I watched CNN and their bias was humongous. Not a fig given for freedom of speech and these are the same MSM people and assembled who assured us over many months that Trump had no chance, would implode any week soon etc. etc. MSBC and BBC, Chuck Todd/CNBC, similarly. It seems to me that the MSM are having a massive fail on all fronts.
CNN were a total disgrace. They were willing on trouble, then squarely 100% blamed Trump for everything.
But then to be honest, the American MSM coverage of places like Ferguson was a disgrace too. Even then an independent report of the situation came out showing that the police officer had done no wrong and backed up by actual witnesses (not twitter rumours), they were still saying but but but...no but's, in that case a man robbed a store and then when stopped by a police officer attempted to take his gun.
One of the Grand Jury witnesses for the Fergusson shooting backed up the police account (which changed) almost to the letter. She was 100% lying as she had not been on the scene.
Mr. K, my understanding was that the Swedes effectively let everyone who wanted to come (perhaps pre-dating Merkel's deranged pronouncement).
The control and censorship of reporting regarding serious crimes by those claiming to be refugees is deeply concerning.
Cameron's been very good on the migrant crisis.
We disagree on Cameron:
Sir Dirty Politics @HouseOfTraitors 1h1 hour ago ++ BREAKING ++. Immigration Figures
Noises from civil service indicate over 3 MILLION immigrants have not been recorded.
Noises are not sufficient - wait to see the facts.
How does a department that depends on paperwork to count numbers count those who never ask for the paperwork let alone refuse to fill it in..
Mind you I don't believe its that easy to work without an NI number so I can't imagine we have 1 million immigrants who haven't been counted let alone 3 million...
There is almost certainly a problem with uncounted immigration. But the 3m number seems very high, and it would surely be captured in employment surveys, in tax take, and the like. There are plenty of coincident indicators that correlate extremely well with population, and I don't know any of them that would suggest anything like 3m.
Nonsense like this is one reason Farron is unfit to be Lib Dem leader. These comments make him look deluded and stupid. There's nothing wrong with ambition but he completely fails to address why people aren't flocking to his party now.
You are quite right. It's far from impossible that the Lib Dems could go backwards in London, Wales, Scotland and the English councils. Given that, he might have been better waiting until after May before asking members to go back to their constituencies and prepare for government.
Nonsense like this is one reason Farron is unfit to be Lib Dem leader. These comments make him look deluded and stupid. There's nothing wrong with ambition but he completely fails to address why people aren't flocking to his party now.
You are quite right. It's far from impossible that the Lib Dems could go backwards in London, Wales, Scotland and the English councils. Given that, he might have been better waiting until after May before asking members to go back to their constituencies and prepare for government.
I think it's highly likely the libdems go backwards this time around. 2012 was quite a good year for the libdems in local elections, and even if they do better than in 2013,14 and 15 they'll still lose seats.
That being said, local by-elections do indicate that the libdem activist base remains. Which means those predictions of total extinction look premature.
" He [Trump] cannot be stopped now unless he stops himself."
I agree with you David, yet the strange thing is that the likes of Kasich simply refuse to go away and accept that it's all over bar the shouting. Having weakened on Betfair from 10/1 out to around 18/1, he's back into 11/1 this morning. Is it simply a case of fools throwing their money at how they wished it could all have been?
I think there is a Kasich bonus as there was a Rubio bonus. British punters would like the US Republicans to be more reasonable, like the Conservatives It made a little sense when Trump and Cruz were yet to prove themselves as resilient front-runners, but not now that Kasich would be appointed from third I have been betting on Trump and Cruz, and on Kasich only when he was 100/1 before the New Hampshire primary. I sold Kasich too early when he was around 20/1 but as you say he refused to go away
One of the hardest betting calls is working out when punters who are acting irrationally will stop acting irrationally.
"We will grow the economy" Labour Mcdonnell on r4today.
The magic money tree.
Osborne currently harvesting the low hanging fruit of that tree.
Osborne is just a minor socialist similar to Darling as CofE.
All we need now is Alanbrooke to post something negative about Osborne and the cry " House" will resound far and wide.
Why would need to do that ?
Back in 2011 my view was seen as somewhat eccentric, now it's becoming the PB consensus. I'm just sitting back enjoying the popcorn.
hmm. one eccentric attracts other eccentrics . The trouble with you guys is that the loathing of Osborne is so deep seated , you cannot consider or post about him it on any form of rational basis.
I don't have any loathing of him, but he's someone that has justified pulling the rug out from people on the breadline in name of deficit reduction, then turns around and gives tax cuts for the wealthy.
The wealthy are paying more taxes not less as a result of Osborne. Since you seem to have never studied economics or learnt about something as fundamental as the Laffer curve, maybe you should research it? Then maybe say what spending should be cut due to the loss of taxes you'd want from raising the tax rate?
I actually have studied economics and know what a crock the Laffer curve is. But I don't bother talking to people that are rude to me.
There is quite a lot of empirical evidence that high marginal tax rates cut economic growth.
Perhaps but to attempts to draw a Laffer curve from real world data has resulted in a random scatter plot. And I don't think there any such evidence for IHT rates.
Surely the big problem with IHT is that the truly rich never pay it, and it falls almost exclusively on the middle and upper middle classes.
I don't believe that. Do you have any evidence?
Let me ask you a question: when Richard Branson, James Dyson or Alan Sugar dies, do you really think there will be a £500m inheritance tax receipt for the government.
Let me ask you a question: when Richard Branson, James Dyson or Alan Sugar dies, do you really think there will be a £500m inheritance tax receipt for the government.
Well for starters Richard Branson doesn't live in the UK, hasn't for 15 years. He is a permanent tax exile and the UK properties he stays in when he is in the UK are in his kids names.
Let me ask you a question: when Richard Branson, James Dyson or Alan Sugar dies, do you really think there will be a £500m inheritance tax receipt for the government.
Well for starters Richard Branson doesn't live in the UK, hasn't for 15 years, and the UK properties he stays in are in his kids names.
Let me ask you a question: when Richard Branson, James Dyson or Alan Sugar dies, do you really think there will be a £500m inheritance tax receipt for the government.
Well for starters Richard Branson doesn't live in the UK, hasn't for 15 years, and the UK properties he stays in are in his kids names.
I rest my case.
But but but, he says none of this is for tax reasons ;-)
Let me ask you a question: when Richard Branson, James Dyson or Alan Sugar dies, do you really think there will be a £500m inheritance tax receipt for the government.
Well for starters Richard Branson doesn't live in the UK, hasn't for 15 years, and the UK properties he stays in are in his kids names.
I rest my case.
But but but, he says none of this is for tax reasons ;-)
In my job, I know a lot of very rich people. Unless they have died unexpectedly, I don't think any of them have ever paid a penny in IHT.
...You are quite right. It's far from impossible that the Lib Dems could go backwards in London, Wales, Scotland and the English councils. Given that, he might have been better waiting until after May before asking members to go back to their constituencies and prepare for government.
Looking at it, Scotland and Wales look like net LD losses. For the rest the key is where are all these increases in membership? If spread outside London then they may not have net losses in English Councils but could be down to 1 or 0 London Assembly seats. However if the new members are mainly in London then I expect net council losses and a shoring up in the London Assembly seats.
This is at a point in this electoral cycle when we have a split and unattractive Labour party and a split and distracted Conservative party. A situation that should bring Lib Dem gains, but probably will not. If not now then when Farron?
As I understand it the 8 state thing isn't really an issue, because you can get the required majorities in later rounds as delegates become unpledged. Its not just the 1st round totals that matter.
Let me ask you a question: when Richard Branson, James Dyson or Alan Sugar dies, do you really think there will be a £500m inheritance tax receipt for the government.
Well for starters Richard Branson doesn't live in the UK, hasn't for 15 years. He is a permanent tax exile and the UK properties he stays in when he is in the UK are in his kids names.
Needs to consider paying rent lest he becomes vulnerable to a GROB.
"We will grow the economy" Labour Mcdonnell on r4today.
The magic money tree.
Osborne currently harvesting the low hanging fruit of that tree.
Osborne is just a minor socialist similar to Darling as CofE.
All we need now is Alanbrooke to post something negative about Osborne and the cry " House" will resound far and wide.
Why would need to do that ?
Back in 2011 my view was seen as somewhat eccentric, now it's becoming the PB consensus. I'm just sitting back enjoying the popcorn.
hmm. one eccentric attracts other eccentrics . The trouble with you guys is that the loathing of Osborne is so deep seated , you cannot consider or post about him it on any form of rational basis.
I don't have any loathing of him, but he's someone that has justified pulling the rug out from people on the breadline in name of deficit reduction, then turns around and gives tax cuts for the o the loss of taxes you'd want from raising the tax rate?
I actually have studied economics and know what a crock the Laffer curve is. But I don't bother talking to people that are rude to me.
There is quite a lot of empirical evidence that high marginal tax rates cut economic growth.
Perhaps but to attempts to draw a Laffer curve from real world data has resulted in a random scatter plot. And I don't think there any such evidence for IHT rates.
Surely the big problem with IHT is that the truly rich never pay it, and it falls almost exclusively on the middle and upper middle classes.
I don't believe that. Do you have any evidence?
Let me ask you a question: when Richard Branson, James Dyson or Alan Sugar dies, do you really think there will be a £500m inheritance tax receipt for the government.
I don't know how big their fortunes are so can't say. But a sample set of four isn't exactly rigorous evidence for what millions of rich people do. Don't you work with statistics for a living??
I read something about Trump wanting free trade with us in the event of Brexit, sounds promising.
I do hope our campaigns don't become as unedifying as those in the US, but fear it's inevitable. Personality politics is here to stay, reading this site its actually the anoraks feeding it. People on here are always shooting or praising the messenger not the message.
If you look in certain corners it is already here. Public meetings being prevented by "protestors" on University campuses, "peaceful protesters" invading public spaces and preventing the public going around their daily business and so on.
I'd put the campaigns of groups such as UKUncut in that category.
If you want to look at more serious violence, you can start with the terrorist links of some Animal Rights people, and the remainder of the movement who deny it, or Antifas, or relatively mainstream people defending those who attacked Prince Charles/Camilla in their car, or put forward political justifications for the "riots" a couple of years ago, or Green people trying to close down electricity supplies.
Or indeed the dodgy links of Mr Livingstone, Ms Abbott, Mr Corbyn and Mr McDonnell.
It is where we are. I'm sure that others will point to different examples from different viewpoints.
Since time began every country in Europe has had protest groups that spill over to violence now and then and they are not limited to the left as you seem to be trying to imply.
Name five recent violent left wing protests in the UK. Name five recent violent right wing protests in the UK.
I know which I'd find easy.
'Violent' protests certainly come from one section of the political spectrum in my country..
...You are quite right. It's far from impossible that the Lib Dems could go backwards in London, Wales, Scotland and the English councils. Given that, he might have been better waiting until after May before asking members to go back to their constituencies and prepare for government.
Looking at it, Scotland and Wales look like net LD losses. For the rest the key is where are all these increases in membership? If spread outside London then they may not have net losses in English Councils but could be down to 1 or 0 London Assembly seats. However if the new members are mainly in London then I expect net council losses and a shoring up in the London Assembly seats.
This is at a point in this electoral cycle when we have a split and unattractive Labour party and a split and distracted Conservative party. A situation that should bring Lib Dem gains, but probably will not. If not now then when Farron?
A repost of something I posted last week:
Tories split asunder on European matters yet again. Scars reopened that didn't heal quickly the first time, and the fact Brexit looms large over the upcoming leadership election is not a good omen this time round either.
Labour suffering dismal, sub-Milibandesque polling, a front bench devoid of most of the party's talent, and a parliamentary party virtually at war with its mass membership, who seem intent on saddling it with unelectable leadership for the foreseeable future.
UKIP, the wannabe-third-party, showing typically self-destructive tendencies, an inability to go beyond "Project Nige" and no sign of an upswing in its electoral fortunes any time soon, even as their pet issue hogs the TV screens.
Paddy Ashdown must stare watching the news on his telly some evenings thinking "where the hell did it all go wrong?" The right man, in the right place, at the right time, and the Lib Dems could be ahead of this shower right now, or at least locking horns in serious contention for the number two slot. Even Nick Clegg must wonder "if only..."
Wonder if he blames himself for the cabfull. Or is it all just the electorate's fault?
...You are quite right. It's far from impossible that the Lib Dems could go backwards in London, Wales, Scotland and the English councils. Given that, he might have been better waiting until after May before asking members to go back to their constituencies and prepare for government.
Looking at it, Scotland and Wales look like net LD losses. For the rest the key is where are all these increases in membership? If spread outside London then they may not have net losses in English Councils but could be down to 1 or 0 London Assembly seats. However if the new members are mainly in London then I expect net council losses and a shoring up in the London Assembly seats.
This is at a point in this electoral cycle when we have a split and unattractive Labour party and a split and distracted Conservative party. A situation that should bring Lib Dem gains, but probably will not. If not now then when Farron?
The position now is only half the question though. The baseline is just as important and in 2012 - when the seats now up were last contested - the Lib Dems were at about 10 or 11% in GE VI, which is well above where they are now. Their May 2012 national equivalent share in the local government elections was some 16%. Unless they can match that this time, they will lose seats.
But you're right on the other point. If the Lib Dems were going to recover then this is the time (even allowing for the coalition experience still being relatively recent). Or as you rightly put it, if they can't do it now, why should we expect them to do so later?
FWIW, I think there will be a slow recovery in the Lib Dem vote but the idea that they could win the 2025 election is - how to put this politely - reaching for the stars with a pair of springs strapped to the underside of his trainers.
Mr. Ears, and yet, *someone* has to win the next election.
If Labour had a non-demented leader they'd be in a pretty nice position right now. But instead they have a man whose focus appears to be unilateral disarmament. Irish terrorism may be on the rise, and the Shadow Chancellor's previous utterances will not necessarily prove helpful.
MyBurningEars it is for those reasons that I think the overall English councillor results are harder to predict this year than recent years.
I am still stunned at the Welsh Lib Dems making paper candidates pick up half the tab on lost deposits. It is so stupid unless they have only selected from the well off.
Meanwhile at their York Conference the LDs are expected to choose a form of AWS for their MP selections.
Trump's fans have also been violent and Trump's man is suspected to have roughed up a conservative reporter this week Sometimes on PB comments, on every topic from Trump to Muslims to PC-gone-mad, one gets the impression that violence and racism only happen when black and brown people do them to white people, but real life is more complicated
...You are quite right. It's far from impossible that the Lib Dems could go backwards in London, Wales, Scotland and the English councils. Given that, he might have been better waiting until after May before asking members to go back to their constituencies and prepare for government.
Looking at it, Scotland and Wales look like net LD losses. For the rest the key is where are all these increases in membership? If spread outside London then they may not have net losses in English Councils but could be down to 1 or 0 London Assembly seats. However if the new members are mainly in London then I expect net council losses and a shoring up in the London Assembly seats.
This is at a point in this electoral cycle when we have a split and unattractive Labour party and a split and distracted Conservative party. A situation that should bring Lib Dem gains, but probably will not. If not now then when Farron?
The position now is only half the question though. The baseline is just as important and in 2012 - when the seats now up were last contested - the Lib Dems were at about 10 or 11% in GE VI, which is well above where they are now. Their May 2012 national equivalent share in the local government elections was some 16%. Unless they can match that this time, they will lose seats.
But you're right on the other point. If the Lib Dems were going to recover then this is the time (even allowing for the coalition experience still being relatively recent). Or as you rightly put it, if they can't do it now, why should we expect them to do so later?
FWIW, I think there will be a slow recovery in the Lib Dem vote but the idea that they could win the 2025 election is - how to put this politely - reaching for the stars with a pair of springs strapped to the underside of his trainers.
Your point on the baseline of 2012 (as rcs1000 has also said) is well made. But I think the headlines will be about London Mayor and the 3 Assemblies.
The other factor not mentioned is that the Conservatives are diverting more energy into the referendum and less into the May elections. A big mistake by Cameron & Osborne in the timing which may lead to a better outcome for Labour and the LDs than would have been the case.
We have a Conservative party fighting two fronts/wars, May elections and the referendum.
Let me ask you a question: when Richard Branson, James Dyson or Alan Sugar dies, do you really think there will be a £500m inheritance tax receipt for the government.
Well for starters Richard Branson doesn't live in the UK, hasn't for 15 years, and the UK properties he stays in are in his kids names.
I rest my case.
But but but, he says none of this is for tax reasons ;-)
In my job, I know a lot of very rich people. Unless they have died unexpectedly, I don't think any of them have ever paid a penny in IHT.
Doesn't surprise me. If you are wealthy and mobile, it is an easy tax to avoid. If however you are middle / upper middle class who have earned all their money via PAYE, tied to their property, their pension, etc, not so much so.
As I understand it the 8 state thing isn't really an issue, because you can get the required majorities in later rounds as delegates become unpledged. Its not just the 1st round totals that matter.
It's not just the first round totals that matter but if Rule 40 stays in place then Rubio and Kasich will be starting on a big fat zero. If there are only two qualified candidates, there's a good chance that one of them will receive the required votes.
But the 8-state rule is an issue because even once delegates become unpledged, to gain a majority (note - not a plurality) of the delegates in eight states is a big ask for any candidate who didn't come to the convention with that kind of backing.
In fact, I'd say that if it stays in place, there's no way to see past Cruz or Trump and if it does stay in place, it's as good an indicator as you can get that there's not going to be an attempt to try.
Yeh, I saw that too. Well you know the old adage: birds of a feather flock together.
Hold on. Yesterday OrderOrder was reporting sources as saying Newsnight's Katz had been over-ruled on his first choice of a...wait for it... Sun journalist.
Current Affairs BBC Specials Next Newsnight Political Editor After Allegra Stratton 3rd of March 2016 10:00 pm Next Newsnight Political Editor Nicholas Watt @ 9/4
David, someone very clearly on here said that territories count as states for the purpose of winning "states", as counterintuitive as that sounds.
As lawyers would say, a constructive state.
You are indeed correct (it's rule 1!):
(b) For the purposes of this rule and all other rules, "state" or "states" shall be taken to include American Samoa, the District of Columbia, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, except in Rule No. 14, and unless the context in which the word "state" or "states" is used clearly makes such inclusion inappropriate.
Nonsense like this is one reason Farron is unfit to be Lib Dem leader. These comments make him look deluded and stupid. There's nothing wrong with ambition but he completely fails to address why people aren't flocking to his party now.
You are quite right. It's far from impossible that the Lib Dems could go backwards in London, Wales, Scotland and the English councils. Given that, he might have been better waiting until after May before asking members to go back to their constituencies and prepare for government.
As a former Lib Dem supporter (not member though) I am pleased to see signs of ambition even if the actual claim is nonsense. But Farron is not up to much.
Let's assume, conservatively, that 2% of these see the remaining member die every year. (Likely it'll be much higher, as young people are much less likely to be rich.) This means that very conservatively GBP80 billion of estates should be subject to inheritance tax.
Of which 40% should be subject to inheritance tax. Or GBP30bn, to be insanely conservative.
Actual tax take 8% of that level, or sub GBP4bn.
There are two explanations for this:
1. Brits aren't anywhere near as rich as the statistics suggest or 2. Really rich people don't pay inheritance tax
Nonsense like this is one reason Farron is unfit to be Lib Dem leader. These comments make him look deluded and stupid. There's nothing wrong with ambition but he completely fails to address why people aren't flocking to his party now.
You are quite right. It's far from impossible that the Lib Dems could go backwards in London, Wales, Scotland and the English councils. Given that, he might have been better waiting until after May before asking members to go back to their constituencies and prepare for government.
As a former Lib Dem supporter (not member though) I am pleased to see signs of ambition even if the actual claim is nonsense. But Farron is not up to much.
In many respects he's even more Sixth-Formery than Ed Miliband!
Let's assume, conservatively, that 2% of these see the remaining member die every year. (Likely it'll be much higher, as young people are much less likely to be rich.) This means that very conservatively GBP80 billion of estates should be subject to inheritance tax.
Of which 40% should be subject to inheritance tax. Or GBP30bn, to be insanely conservative.
Actual tax take 8% of that level, or sub GBP4bn.
There are two explanations for this:
1. Brits aren't anywhere near as rich as the statistics suggest or 2. Really rich people don't pay inheritance tax
Your call.
but agricultural land is exempt. How much of this wealth is land?
...You are quite right. It's far from impossible that the Lib Dems could go backwards in London, Wales, Scotland and the English councils. Given that, he might have been better waiting until after May before asking members to go back to their constituencies and prepare for government.
Looking at it, Scotland and Wales look like net LD losses. For the rest the key is where are all these increases in membership? If spread outside London then they may not have net losses in English Councils but could be down to 1 or 0 London Assembly seats. However if the new members are mainly in London then I expect net council losses and a shoring up in the London Assembly seats.
This is at a point in this electoral cycle when we have a split and unattractive Labour party and a split and distracted Conservative party. A situation that should bring Lib Dem gains, but probably will not. If not now then when Farron?
The position now is only half the question though. The baseline is just as important and in 2012 - when the seats now up were last contested - the Lib Dems were at about 10 or 11% in GE VI, which is well above where they are now. Their May 2012 national equivalent share in the local government elections was some 16%. Unless they can match that this time, they will lose seats.
But you're right on the other point. If the Lib Dems were going to recover then this is the time (even allowing for the coalition experience still being relatively recent). Or as you rightly put it, if they can't do it now, why should we expect them to do so later?
FWIW, I think there will be a slow recovery in the Lib Dem vote but the idea that they could win the 2025 election is - how to put this politely - reaching for the stars with a pair of springs strapped to the underside of his trainers.
There's no chance that the libdems will get an national equivalent vote share close to 16%. However, they might see progress compared to their vote shares in 2013-15
Let me ask you a question: when Richard Branson, James Dyson or Alan Sugar dies, do you really think there will be a £500m inheritance tax receipt for the government.
Well for starters Richard Branson doesn't live in the UK, hasn't for 15 years, and the UK properties he stays in are in his kids names.
I rest my case.
But but but, he says none of this is for tax reasons ;-)
In my job, I know a lot of very rich people. Unless they have died unexpectedly, I don't think any of them have ever paid a penny in IHT.
Doesn't surprise me. If you are wealthy and mobile, it is an easy tax to avoid. If however you are middle / upper middle class who have earned all their money via PAYE, tied to their property, their pension, etc, not so much so.
Which is why the government is raising the threshold for IHT to £1 million to take most of the middle classes out of IHT
Nonsense like this is one reason Farron is unfit to be Lib Dem leader. These comments make him look deluded and stupid. There's nothing wrong with ambition but he completely fails to address why people aren't flocking to his party now.
You are quite right. It's far from impossible that the Lib Dems could go backwards in London, Wales, Scotland and the English councils. Given that, he might have been better waiting until after May before asking members to go back to their constituencies and prepare for government.
As a former Lib Dem supporter (not member though) I am pleased to see signs of ambition even if the actual claim is nonsense. But Farron is not up to much.
Ambition is one thing, but aiming for their best result in a century following on from arguably their worst* and failing to address the reasons for that disaster suggests a considerable lack of engagement with reality.
* Yes, there were elections in the 1950s when the Liberals returned only six MPs but that was a dip from an already low point. 2015, by contrast, was such a disaster not only because they only won eight but because they lost about 85% of those they they were defending.
Yeh, I saw that too. Well you know the old adage: birds of a feather flock together.
Hold on. Yesterday OrderOrder was reporting sources as saying Newsnight's Katz had been over-ruled on his first choice of a...wait for it... Sun journalist.
The previous employer really shouldn't be a bar to picking the best candidate....
The other factor not mentioned is that the Conservatives are diverting more energy into the referendum and less into the May elections. A big mistake by Cameron & Osborne in the timing which may lead to a better outcome for Labour and the LDs than would have been the case.
We have a Conservative party fighting two fronts/wars, May elections and the referendum.
Perhaps this a mis-strategic masterstroke - firm up Corbyn's position to be unassailable, force anti-Corbyn elements of the PLP into having to consider the extra-mural option more seriously...
MyBurningEars it is for those reasons that I think the overall English councillor results are harder to predict this year than recent years.
I am still stunned at the Welsh Lib Dems making paper candidates pick up half the tab on lost deposits. It is so stupid unless they have only selected from the well off.
Meanwhile at their York Conference the LDs are expected to choose a form of AWS for their MP selections.
How many Lib Dems are going to be fussed to stand in Wales? That's terrible!
He's going to be disappointed when it turns out the Trump doesn't mean any of it.
Given the nature of Trump's base is white working class men concerned by immigration it is too late for Trump to back out of it now, as they are the core of his support for the general election
On the Lib Dems: I remember reading that they had a tithe system whereby all elected politicians donated a certain proportion of their income to the party. Given the culling of MPs, MEPs and councillors, that must've done massive damage to their financial position.
Worth noting they still got surprisingly good donations, though (I think recent figures had them on something like £800,000, compared to a few million for the Conservatives, and ahead of UKIP).
Was out for the Zac campaign this morning. Good overall response from people. Women love him. "He's a good egg that Zac" or "he's a really nice guy" were the responses from women. The Leave stance might hurt a bit but overall the calculation seems to be picking up UKIP second prefs which will help more than the loss of others.
Let's assume, conservatively, that 2% of these see the remaining member die every year. (Likely it'll be much higher, as young people are much less likely to be rich.) This means that very conservatively GBP80 billion of estates should be subject to inheritance tax.
Of which 40% should be subject to inheritance tax. Or GBP30bn, to be insanely conservative.
Actual tax take 8% of that level, or sub GBP4bn.
There are two explanations for this:
1. Brits aren't anywhere near as rich as the statistics suggest or 2. Really rich people don't pay inheritance tax
Your call.
but agricultural land is exempt. How much of this wealth is land?
Depends on the family. Those like the Norfolks have lots and lots of agricultural land but I'd guess that it does not form a significant part of their wealth. The Norfolks could actually be a case study of the futility of Death Duties/IHT. After nearly a hundred years since Lloyd George introduced his Death Duties they still own vast swathes of West Sussex, still own Arundel Castle and are still very, very wealthy (OK, non-Russian Kleptocrat wealthy but still in the top 0.1%).
Look at the other old families, they have all survived very well and the exchequer seem to get very little anytime their leading member dies. The Times used to have a regular column, maybe still does for all I know, "Recent Wills and Probate"; as a young man I used to study it on a regular basis. It was astonishing how many very wealthy men who lived exceedingly well actually died as relative paupers - they didn't of course its just that all the money was in trusts and other vehicles.
IHT is inefficient and hits only the middle classes who haven't thought about it. Given the massive rise in house prices and the fact that the qualification amount for IHT has not been properly indexed in donkey's years, the estate of some ordinary person who bought a modest house in London forty years ago is likely to get slammed for a big bill while that of a multi-millionaire will not.
If even such an egalitarian society as Australia has abolished IHT, the justifications for keeping it going here must be pretty damn thin.
Let's assume, conservatively, that 2% of these see the remaining member die every year. (Likely it'll be much higher, as young people are much less likely to be rich.) This means that very conservatively GBP80 billion of estates should be subject to inheritance tax.
Of which 40% should be subject to inheritance tax. Or GBP30bn, to be insanely conservative.
Actual tax take 8% of that level, or sub GBP4bn.
There are two explanations for this:
1. Brits aren't anywhere near as rich as the statistics suggest or 2. Really rich people don't pay inheritance tax
Your call.
but agricultural land is exempt. How much of this wealth is land?
Depends on the family. Those like the Norfolks have lots and lots of agricultural land but I'd guess that it does not form a significant part of their wealth. The Norfolks could actually be a case study of the futility of Death Duties/IHT. After nearly a hundred years since Lloyd George introduced his Death Duties they still own vast swathes of West Sussex, still own Arundel Castle and are still very, very wealthy (OK, non-Russian Kleptocrat wealthy but still in the top 0.1%).
Look at the other old families, they have all survived very well and the exchequer seem to get very little anytime their leading member dies. The Times used to have a regular column, maybe still does for all I know, "Recent Wills and Probate"; as a young man I used to study it on a regular basis. It was astonishing how many very wealthy men who lived exceedingly well actually died as relative paupers - they didn't of course its just that all the money was in trusts and other vehicles.
IHT is inefficient and hits only the middle classes who haven't thought about it. Given the massive rise in house prices and the fact that the qualification amount for IHT has not been properly indexed in donkey's years, the estate of some ordinary person who bought a modest house in London forty years ago is likely to get slammed for a big bill while that of a multi-millionaire will not.
If even such an egalitarian society as Australia has abolished IHT, the justifications for keeping it going here must be pretty damn thin.
The government is raising the threshold for IHT to £1 million which will solve most of that problem
Nonsense like this is one reason Farron is unfit to be Lib Dem leader. These comments make him look deluded and stupid. There's nothing wrong with ambition but he completely fails to address why people aren't flocking to his party now.
You are quite right. It's far from impossible that the Lib Dems could go backwards in London, Wales, Scotland and the English councils. Given that, he might have been better waiting until after May before asking members to go back to their constituencies and prepare for government.
As a former Lib Dem supporter (not member though) I am pleased to see signs of ambition even if the actual claim is nonsense. But Farron is not up to much.
Ambition is one thing, but aiming for their best result in a century following on from arguably their worst* and failing to address the reasons for that disaster suggests a considerable lack of engagement with reality.
* Yes, there were elections in the 1950s when the Liberals returned only six MPs but that was a dip from an already low point. 2015, by contrast, was such a disaster not only because they only won eight but because they lost about 85% of those they they were defending.
True, but that's FPTP following a coalition government. The Canadian Tories were down to 2 MPs at one stage before coming back to rule. Justin Trudeau came from third place to a majority. We have Corbyn, the Tories are fighting each other over the EU, UKIP is declining. The Lib Dems may or may not be able to take advantage of the situation, but UK politics is in a state of flux.
Nonsense like this is one reason Farron is unfit to be Lib Dem leader. These comments make him look deluded and stupid. There's nothing wrong with ambition but he completely fails to address why people aren't flocking to his party now.
You are quite right. It's far from impossible that the Lib Dems could go backwards in London, Wales, Scotland and the English councils. Given that, he might have been better waiting until after May before asking members to go back to their constituencies and prepare for government.
As a former Lib Dem supporter (not member though) I am pleased to see signs of ambition even if the actual claim is nonsense. But Farron is not up to much.
Ambition is one thing, but aiming for their best result in a century following on from arguably their worst* and failing to address the reasons for that disaster suggests a considerable lack of engagement with reality.
* Yes, there were elections in the 1950s when the Liberals returned only six MPs but that was a dip from an already low point. 2015, by contrast, was such a disaster not only because they only won eight but because they lost about 85% of those they they were defending.
True, but that's FPTP following a coalition government. The Canadian Tories were down to 2 MPs at one stage before coming back to rule. Justin Trudeau came from third place to a majority. We have Corbyn, the Tories are fighting each other over the EU, UKIP is declining. The Lib Dems may or may not be able to take advantage of the situation, but UK politics is in a state of flux.
They can only hope it remains so, if they are to have any change of even moderate recovery. I hope they do - I don't like the lack of strong third parties, bar the SNP whose ambitions is regionally focused and in any case maximised already.
@HTScotPol: Applause for SNP national secretary notably more muted than cheers for delegate who just gave the party hierarchy hell at #SNP16
scott slavering at the mouth , someone does not agree with top brass at SNP conference. Down to 60% in polls what next a Tory surge. Why don't those damn SNP stage manage their conferences like the Toties.
The government is raising the threshold for IHT to £1 million which will solve most of that problem
It might well do, Mr. Hyfud, but then I would suggest there is even less reason to keep it going. If the only people who are paying it are the reasonably wealthy, but ill-informed/stupid/unlucky, middle classes own houses worth more than £1m then the candle is not worth the game (again see Australia).
Furthermore, the people who make most out of IHT are the tax-planners and lawyers who charge serious fees for helping families avoid it. That money could be better used as investment in industry which will generate future prosperity.
Apologies to any tax-planners and tax-lawyers on here - I know there used to be at least one member of this site who made his, very handsome, living in this way.
Comments
But then to be honest, the American MSM coverage of places like Ferguson was a disgrace too. Even then an independent report of the situation came out showing that the police officer had done no wrong and backed up by actual witnesses (not twitter rumours), they were still saying but but but...no but's, in that case a man robbed a store and then when stopped by a police officer attempted to take his gun.
My guess for Trump's actual running mate, within the GOP, is that it'll come down to the usual balancing considerations - ideally, someone young, female, non-white, southern / south-western and moderate (or as many of those boxes as might be ticked concurrently). I've not really had time to go through the possible options to come up with suggestions.
That said, a bad presidential run doesn't always do for a running-mate's chances; they're usually judged on their own merits.
I therefore expect him to throw out a few chunks of red meat to mark himself out as a "low tax" Conservative. A decent increase in the personal allowance, and a faster than expected rise in the 40p threshold are both possible.
I think he'd like to cut the top rate from 45p to 40p too - along with further cuts in corporation tax - but the optics of that are far too risky. He'll stick to a working people/ middle income people meme - think "does the Daily Mail like it?"
Further cuts in welfare will be used to pay for it.
There is one consequence of the difference though. To amend the rules to include Rubio would probably mean including a lot of other potential candidates; the likes of Ryan and Romney. It's one thing if someone's got four states under their belt but there's little point distinguishing between those who ran and didn't get anywhere and those who didn't run at all.
As for cutting the deficit, he's cut it by about £100bn and counting and will run a surplus this Parliament. Again how many other Chancellors have cut the deficit by £100bn?
I'm not saying it's a slam-dunk but it'd be a hell of a risk to run for any GOP insider thinking of calling Cruz's bluff.
Mind you I don't believe its that easy to work without an NI number so I can't imagine we have 1 million immigrants who haven't been counted let alone 3 million...
It made a little sense when Trump and Cruz were yet to prove themselves as resilient front-runners, but not now that Kasich would be appointed from third
I have been betting on Trump and Cruz, and on Kasich only when he was 100/1 before the New Hampshire primary. I sold Kasich too early when he was around 20/1 but as you say he refused to go away
Meanwhile your buddies in France who whacked up tax rates even higher have seen a flight from their country to ours so they get less tax and we take even more. Win, win for us.
Returning to last night's by-election post: another dismal display by Labour, this time in Cumbria. Down 10%.
so I would not characterise it as nationally typical
Labour swung 5 per cent to the second-place Lib Dems in Maidenhead which sounds more like a credible local Lib Dem effect to me
"In previous years the Welsh Party had agreed to underwrite candidate deposits should they be lost, but it seems that the finances no longer stretch to this arrangement. Instead, it has committed to underwriting half of the deposit in each constituency and has recommended that the local party raises the balance. ....... It also seems that the Welsh Party did not decide on this approach until after a significant number of candidates had already been chosen to contest 'no hope' constituencies, so many put themselves forward not knowing the full financial circumstances. "
http://towardsgunfire.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/rhondda-prospective-assembly-candidate.html
Tim Farron: Lib Dems could be main party of government in a decade
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/mar/11/tim-farron-lib-dems-government-decade
But then you still have the problem that the next in line is Cruz, who may well be even more unelectable than Trump. At least with Trump you can see him pulling off some kind of bold, shameless, audacious pivot.
I guess the other angle to this is the impact on down-ballot races, but I don't really know how to call that.
You are quite right. It's far from impossible that the Lib Dems could go backwards in London, Wales, Scotland and the English councils. Given that, he might have been better waiting until after May before asking members to go back to their constituencies and prepare for government.
That being said, local by-elections do indicate that the libdem activist base remains. Which means those predictions of total extinction look premature.
The takings last year were the same as 2010 and are way below those of 2007
This is at a point in this electoral cycle when we have a split and unattractive Labour party and a split and distracted Conservative party. A situation that should bring Lib Dem gains, but probably will not. If not now then when Farron?
What is next? Hand Relief for the onanists?
http://order-order.com/2016/03/12/nicholas-watt-new-newsnight-political-editor/
As lawyers would say, a constructive state.
Violent Protesters commit Assault at Donald Trump's Rally In Chicago @donlemon @jaketapper #TrumpRally #Trump2016
https://t.co/QsHn07KlBi
Tories split asunder on European matters yet again. Scars reopened that didn't heal quickly the first time, and the fact Brexit looms large over the upcoming leadership election is not a good omen this time round either.
Labour suffering dismal, sub-Milibandesque polling, a front bench devoid of most of the party's talent, and a parliamentary party virtually at war with its mass membership, who seem intent on saddling it with unelectable leadership for the foreseeable future.
UKIP, the wannabe-third-party, showing typically self-destructive tendencies, an inability to go beyond "Project Nige" and no sign of an upswing in its electoral fortunes any time soon, even as their pet issue hogs the TV screens.
Paddy Ashdown must stare watching the news on his telly some evenings thinking "where the hell did it all go wrong?" The right man, in the right place, at the right time, and the Lib Dems could be ahead of this shower right now, or at least locking horns in serious contention for the number two slot. Even Nick Clegg must wonder "if only..."
Wonder if he blames himself for the cabfull. Or is it all just the electorate's fault?
But you're right on the other point. If the Lib Dems were going to recover then this is the time (even allowing for the coalition experience still being relatively recent). Or as you rightly put it, if they can't do it now, why should we expect them to do so later?
FWIW, I think there will be a slow recovery in the Lib Dem vote but the idea that they could win the 2025 election is - how to put this politely - reaching for the stars with a pair of springs strapped to the underside of his trainers.
If Labour had a non-demented leader they'd be in a pretty nice position right now. But instead they have a man whose focus appears to be unilateral disarmament. Irish terrorism may be on the rise, and the Shadow Chancellor's previous utterances will not necessarily prove helpful.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_9OJnRnZjU
I am still stunned at the Welsh Lib Dems making paper candidates pick up half the tab on lost deposits. It is so stupid unless they have only selected from the well off.
Meanwhile at their York Conference the LDs are expected to choose a form of AWS for their MP selections.
Sometimes on PB comments, on every topic from Trump to Muslims to PC-gone-mad, one gets the impression that violence and racism only happen when black and brown people do them to white people, but real life is more complicated
The other factor not mentioned is that the Conservatives are diverting more energy into the referendum and less into the May elections. A big mistake by Cameron & Osborne in the timing which may lead to a better outcome for Labour and the LDs than would have been the case.
We have a Conservative party fighting two fronts/wars, May elections and the referendum.
But the 8-state rule is an issue because even once delegates become unpledged, to gain a majority (note - not a plurality) of the delegates in eight states is a big ask for any candidate who didn't come to the convention with that kind of backing.
In fact, I'd say that if it stays in place, there's no way to see past Cruz or Trump and if it does stay in place, it's as good an indicator as you can get that there's not going to be an attempt to try.
Current Affairs
BBC Specials
Next Newsnight Political Editor After Allegra Stratton
3rd of March 2016 10:00 pm
Next Newsnight Political Editor
Nicholas Watt @ 9/4
(b) For the purposes of this rule and all other rules, "state" or "states" shall be taken to include American Samoa, the District of Columbia, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, except in Rule No. 14, and unless the context in which the word "state" or "states" is used clearly makes such inclusion inappropriate.
I'll edit the header again (ahem!).
The top 10% of households have wealth somewhat in excess of GBP4trillion [source: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160105160709/http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/was/wealth-in-great-britain-wave-3/2010-2012/report--chapter-2--total-wealth.html]. These are the households that are eligible for IHT.
Let's assume, conservatively, that 2% of these see the remaining member die every year. (Likely it'll be much higher, as young people are much less likely to be rich.) This means that very conservatively GBP80 billion of estates should be subject to inheritance tax.
Of which 40% should be subject to inheritance tax. Or GBP30bn, to be insanely conservative.
Actual tax take 8% of that level, or sub GBP4bn.
There are two explanations for this:
1. Brits aren't anywhere near as rich as the statistics suggest
or
2. Really rich people don't pay inheritance tax
Your call.
* Yes, there were elections in the 1950s when the Liberals returned only six MPs but that was a dip from an already low point. 2015, by contrast, was such a disaster not only because they only won eight but because they lost about 85% of those they they were defending.
https://twitter.com/lepenjm/status/703625793814003712
https://twitter.com/lepenjm/status/708291502536052737
http://order-order.com/2016/03/11/khan-met-godfather-of-internet-jihad-twice-in-last-8-months/
https://m.facebook.com/MrJohnRentoul/posts/1581609588828857
Worth noting they still got surprisingly good donations, though (I think recent figures had them on something like £800,000, compared to a few million for the Conservatives, and ahead of UKIP).
Look at the other old families, they have all survived very well and the exchequer seem to get very little anytime their leading member dies. The Times used to have a regular column, maybe still does for all I know, "Recent Wills and Probate"; as a young man I used to study it on a regular basis. It was astonishing how many very wealthy men who lived exceedingly well actually died as relative paupers - they didn't of course its just that all the money was in trusts and other vehicles.
IHT is inefficient and hits only the middle classes who haven't thought about it. Given the massive rise in house prices and the fact that the qualification amount for IHT has not been properly indexed in donkey's years, the estate of some ordinary person who bought a modest house in London forty years ago is likely to get slammed for a big bill while that of a multi-millionaire will not.
If even such an egalitarian society as Australia has abolished IHT, the justifications for keeping it going here must be pretty damn thin.
@HTScotPol: Wow! Delegate tells #SNP16 conf that many of the motions are "complacent" and "self-congratulatory". Burn the heretic!
@JamieRoss7: Incredible scenes. A delegate just laid into the "self-congratulatory" SNP on stage saying it's resembling Tony Blair's Labour party.
@JamieRoss7: I've been to four SNP conferences and this is the first time I've heard someone criticise the party on stage.
@HTScotPol: SNP national secretary's hands visibly shaking as he responds to brutal criticism from delegate at #SNP16
Fascinating would be if you were asked to take part in a threesome with Tony Blair and Heidi Klum would you ?
The Canadian Tories were down to 2 MPs at one stage before coming back to rule. Justin Trudeau came from third place to a majority.
We have Corbyn, the Tories are fighting each other over the EU, UKIP is declining. The Lib Dems may or may not be able to take advantage of the situation, but UK politics is in a state of flux.
59% of surveyed Germans said they are dissatisfied with Angela Merkel's refugee policy https://t.co/fKWykBtBe4 https://t.co/aAkXwi6cGM
Furthermore, the people who make most out of IHT are the tax-planners and lawyers who charge serious fees for helping families avoid it. That money could be better used as investment in industry which will generate future prosperity.
Apologies to any tax-planners and tax-lawyers on here - I know there used to be at least one member of this site who made his, very handsome, living in this way.
@JamieRoss7: I'm told that a specific warning went around SNP politicians at the last conference to tell the press office if I ask for an interview.