Full Fact It's correct that over 99% of solar capacity in the UK has been installed since David Cameron became PM https://t.co/p43MXeRV08 #PMQs
You only have to drive around the country and see the massive amount of fields that have been converted in solar farms. How economical it all is, given solar has always been expensive and we don't exactly get a lot of sun in the UK (yes I know they can still work without masses of direct sunlight) I have no idea.
Meeksian? On balance it's better than Meeksite or Meeksist, I think. On your first point, I'm not a great fan of the EU and was open-minded about voting Leave for quite some time. That time is now past but I'm never going to be an enthusiastic campaigner for the EU.
Structurally, the referendum can only be a binary Leave/Remain choice (or names to that effect). Those wishing to leave must therefore construct their argument accordingly. It is the choice of the Leave campaign as to how it argues its case.
Leave has been so incoherent as to have failed even to coalesce and will not do so for at least another month. That is not the fault of the government (and is, in truth, an indication of the problems that the nation would face if it decides to leave). And the problem with the alternatives put forward is not that there aren't any coherent alternatives, it is that we have a superabundance of them. Boris Johnson alone has managed four in the last three weeks. If we vote leave, we'll be having a national game of spin the bottle to choose which one gets selected. That's not particularly likely to produce one that the public will get behind or be contented with: the reverse.
But it's a bit rich blaming the Remain camp for the fact that the Leave camp is so spectacularly crap.
Personally I'd go for the Meekado given the Pooh-Bah approach to dissenters.
I still don't understand how you see the Leave campaign as being empowered to construct an alternative. Because if the campaign was unaminous the remainers would immediately (and correctly) say "But they can't guarantee that will happen - rather than [say] EEA, it could be a disastrous exit with no agreements". If Cameron were to say something like "I promise that we will do our best to negotiate our future outside the EU in line with the agreed views of the Leave campaign" you'd have a fair point. But he hasn't, and won't. At the moment what you're saying is akin to criticising England for not having a settled first XV on the basis that people in the West Stand are arguing about whether Farrell or Tuilagi should be at 12.
Unless we can get that index line down, I don't see how it can be counted as any kind of success.
But the index line cant come down, isnt it the base to measure changes from? If you reset the index line from say 2009, it would look a bit rockier, but we see here an impressive change around how we treat our environment over that time period. It's not just air quality its sea and river quality also. Much of the hard work has come about as a result of EU bullying us into facing up to our responsibilities...
The "gathering storm clouds" are to a fair extent out of Osborne's control. He will be judged on whether he has fixed the roof while the suns was shining (albeit weakly) and on whether his famed rebalancing has happened to any significant extent. hmmmm
I think he has been a moderately decent Chancellor, broadly going in the right direction whilst failing to do much about some of the key the underlying issues we face such as stupidly high house prices, too many imports and a lack of skills in the economy. Blame not solely at his door though.
Wealth inequality has definitely grown as well, there must be a sensible, effective and fair way of getting a bit more from the "1%" or even 0.1%. This is getting noticed some way beyond the usual lefty anti-capitalist circles who think salaries should be capped at £50k or whatever.
Unless we can get that index line down, I don't see how it can be counted as any kind of success.
But the index line cant come down, isnt it the base to measure changes from? If you reset the index line from say 2009, it would look a bit rockier, but we see here an impressive change around how we treat our environment over that time period. It's not just air quality its sea and river quality also. Much of the hard work has come about as a result of EU bullying us into facing up to our responsibilities...
Personally I'd go for the Meekado given the Pooh-Bah approach to dissenters.
I still don't understand how you see the Leave campaign as being empowered to construct an alternative. Because if the campaign was unaminous the remainers would immediately (and correctly) say "But they can't guarantee that will happen - rather than [say] EEA, it could be a disastrous exit with no agreements". If Cameron were to say something like "I promise that we will do our best to negotiate our future outside the EU in line with the agreed views of the Leave campaign" you'd have a fair point. But he hasn't, and won't. At the moment what you're saying is akin to criticising England for not having a settled first XV on the basis that people in the West Stand are arguing about whether Farrell or Tuilagi should be at 12.
It is not in the government's gift to tell opponents how they should wish to oppose its policy.
The referendum will deliver Leave or Remain and a mandate for future action accordingly. If Leave, the meaning of Leave will be discerned primarily from the way in which the Leave camp has conducted its campaign. At present, that's not going to be very informative, to put it mildly.
It is for the Leave camp to construct a prospectus. Remain has done that. It may well be that the Leave prospectus would lack plausibility (certainly Leavers aren't shy about suggesting that about the Remain prospectus) but right now it hasn't even got to the stage of clarity or coherence.
The next conservative leader will first have to be one of the top two selected by tory MPs (or has that changed). Which two will be chosen? And what will the membership do with this choice?
Any ideas on the Chancellor's rabbit out of a hat in the Budget?
My suggestion would be a reversal of the benefit-in-kind tax treatment of employer-provided private health insurance.
Maybe also something on simplification of marginal income tax rates alongside a rise in the 40% threshold?
Do we have a budget bingo market anywhere?
I wonder if he will go for a big exciting review of something that gets everyone debating the merits of it but doesn't cost him anything up front and may even be fiscally neutral - eg merging NI and Income Tax
Any ideas on the Chancellor's rabbit out of a hat in the Budget?
My suggestion would be a reversal of the benefit-in-kind tax treatment of employer-provided private health insurance.
Maybe also something on simplification of marginal income tax rates alongside a rise in the 40% threshold?
Do we have a budget bingo market anywhere?
I wonder if he will go for a big exciting review of something that gets everyone debating the merits of it but doesn't cost him anything up front and may even be fiscally neutral - eg merging NI and Income Tax
Full Fact It's correct that over 99% of solar capacity in the UK has been installed since David Cameron became PM https://t.co/p43MXeRV08 #PMQs
You only have to drive around the country and see the massive amount of fields that have been converted in solar farms. How economical it all is, given solar has always been expensive and we don't exactly get a lot of sun in the UK (yes I know they can still work without masses of direct sunlight) I have no idea.
Any ideas on the Chancellor's rabbit out of a hat in the Budget?
My suggestion would be a reversal of the benefit-in-kind tax treatment of employer-provided private health insurance.
Maybe also something on simplification of marginal income tax rates alongside a rise in the 40% threshold?
Do we have a budget bingo market anywhere?
It costs me a fortune.
My private medical provided by my employer has a policy value of c.£2.5k and HMRC make it tax deductible; I'm a 40% taxpayer.
So I basically paid over a grand for it last year.
Not sure it's worth it.
Yep - surely something that reduces pressure on the NHS should be encouraged by the tax system rather than penalised?
To really encourage companies to offer it, make the cost of insurance deductible against corporation tax - but only on condition that all employees are enrolled if they wish to be. Imagine what would happen to NHS demand if Tesco could be persuaded to offer comprehensive health insurance to all their employees.
Any ideas on the Chancellor's rabbit out of a hat in the Budget?
My suggestion would be a reversal of the benefit-in-kind tax treatment of employer-provided private health insurance.
Maybe also something on simplification of marginal income tax rates alongside a rise in the 40% threshold?
Do we have a budget bingo market anywhere?
It costs me a fortune.
My private medical provided by my employer has a policy value of c.£2.5k and HMRC make it tax deductible; I'm a 40% taxpayer.
So I basically paid over a grand for it last year.
Not sure it's worth it.
Yep - surely something that reduces pressure on the NHS should be encouraged by the tax system rather than penalised?
To really encourage companies to offer it, make the cost of insurance deductible against corporation tax - but only on condition that all employees are enrolled if they wish to be. Imagine what would happen to NHS demand if Tesco could be persuaded to offer comprehensive health insurance to all their employees.
The cost of PMI (like most employee benefits and remuneration) is deductible against CT.
Any ideas on the Chancellor's rabbit out of a hat in the Budget?
My suggestion would be a reversal of the benefit-in-kind tax treatment of employer-provided private health insurance.
Maybe also something on simplification of marginal income tax rates alongside a rise in the 40% threshold?
Do we have a budget bingo market anywhere?
It costs me a fortune.
My private medical provided by my employer has a policy value of c.£2.5k and HMRC make it tax deductible; I'm a 40% taxpayer.
So I basically paid over a grand for it last year.
Not sure it's worth it.
Yep - surely something that reduces pressure on the NHS should be encouraged by the tax system rather than penalised?
To really encourage companies to offer it, make the cost of insurance deductible against corporation tax - but only on condition that all employees are enrolled if they wish to be. Imagine what would happen to NHS demand if Tesco could be persuaded to offer comprehensive health insurance to all their employees.
The cost of PMI (like most employee benefits and remuneration) is deductible against CT.
I said that wrong. Meant to say Employer NI contributions rather than corp tax.
Personally I'd go for the Meekado given the Pooh-Bah approach to dissenters.
I still don't understand how you see the Leave campaign as being empowered to construct an alternative. Because if the campaign was unaminous the remainers would immediately (and correctly) say "But they can't guarantee that will happen - rather than [say] EEA, it could be a disastrous exit with no agreements". If Cameron were to say something like "I promise that we will do our best to negotiate our future outside the EU in line with the agreed views of the Leave campaign" you'd have a fair point. But he hasn't, and won't. At the moment what you're saying is akin to criticising England for not having a settled first XV on the basis that people in the West Stand are arguing about whether Farrell or Tuilagi should be at 12.
It is not in the government's gift to tell opponents how they should wish to oppose its policy.
The referendum will deliver Leave or Remain and a mandate for future action accordingly. If Leave, the meaning of Leave will be discerned primarily from the way in which the Leave camp has conducted its campaign. At present, that's not going to be very informative, to put it mildly.
It is for the Leave camp to construct a prospectus. Remain has done that. It may well be that the Leave prospectus would lack plausibility (certainly Leavers aren't shy about suggesting that about the Remain prospectus) but right now it hasn't even got to the stage of clarity or coherence.
The fundamental point you are ignoring is that different people have different reasons for wanting to leave.
The question isn't "is the grass on the other side of the fence green or yellow?", it's "do you want to be on this side of the fence or not?"
Personally speaking, I want to be on the other side of the fence. I'd rather the grass was green, but I would prefer yellow grass to the slough of despond* that we are currently standing in
Personally I'd go for the Meekado given the Pooh-Bah approach to dissenters.
I still don't understand how you see the Leave campaign as being empowered to construct an alternative. Because if the campaign was unaminous the remainers would immediately (and correctly) say "But they can't guarantee that will happen - rather than [say] EEA, it could be a disastrous exit with no agreements". If Cameron were to say something like "I promise that we will do our best to negotiate our future outside the EU in line with the agreed views of the Leave campaign" you'd have a fair point. But he hasn't, and won't. At the moment what you're saying is akin to criticising England for not having a settled first XV on the basis that people in the West Stand are arguing about whether Farrell or Tuilagi should be at 12.
It is not in the government's gift to tell opponents how they should wish to oppose its policy.
The referendum will deliver Leave or Remain and a mandate for future action accordingly. If Leave, the meaning of Leave will be discerned primarily from the way in which the Leave camp has conducted its campaign. At present, that's not going to be very informative, to put it mildly.
It is for the Leave camp to construct a prospectus. Remain has done that. It may well be that the Leave prospectus would lack plausibility (certainly Leavers aren't shy about suggesting that about the Remain prospectus) but right now it hasn't even got to the stage of clarity or coherence.
Continuing the logic, how should a responsible government discern its appropriate course of action if there *wasn't* a completely clear prospectus? Also, should a responsible government really use as its primary source of guidance a view put forward by a mishmash of individuals acting in a private capcity, some elected and some unelected (in general terms), but none elected to fulfil that role in the governance of the country? Seems a surprising choice.
Any ideas on the Chancellor's rabbit out of a hat in the Budget?
My suggestion would be a reversal of the benefit-in-kind tax treatment of employer-provided private health insurance.
Maybe also something on simplification of marginal income tax rates alongside a rise in the 40% threshold?
Do we have a budget bingo market anywhere?
It costs me a fortune.
My private medical provided by my employer has a policy value of c.£2.5k and HMRC make it tax deductible; I'm a 40% taxpayer.
So I basically paid over a grand for it last year.
Not sure it's worth it.
Yep - surely something that reduces pressure on the NHS should be encouraged by the tax system rather than penalised?
To really encourage companies to offer it, make the cost of insurance deductible against corporation tax - but only on condition that all employees are enrolled if they wish to be. Imagine what would happen to NHS demand if Tesco could be persuaded to offer comprehensive health insurance to all their employees.
Imagine what would happen if thousands of Tesco employees were able to compare NHS healthcare with an alternative. They might prefer the new religion.
Any ideas on the Chancellor's rabbit out of a hat in the Budget?
My suggestion would be a reversal of the benefit-in-kind tax treatment of employer-provided private health insurance.
Maybe also something on simplification of marginal income tax rates alongside a rise in the 40% threshold?
Do we have a budget bingo market anywhere?
It costs me a fortune.
My private medical provided by my employer has a policy value of c.£2.5k and HMRC make it tax deductible; I'm a 40% taxpayer.
So I basically paid over a grand for it last year.
Not sure it's worth it.
Yep - surely something that reduces pressure on the NHS should be encouraged by the tax system rather than penalised?
To really encourage companies to offer it, make the cost of insurance deductible against corporation tax - but only on condition that all employees are enrolled if they wish to be. Imagine what would happen to NHS demand if Tesco could be persuaded to offer comprehensive health insurance to all their employees.
The cost of PMI (like most employee benefits and remuneration) is deductible against CT.
I said that wrong. Meant to say Employer NI contributions rather than corp tax.
Oh ok, make it an exempt benefit for Class 1A? Not a bad call, hard to say whether the saving would be decisive in any employer offering or not offering PMI though (tends to be driven by industry sector norms, so it might just end up being a tax break for banks/large corporates).
Off topic, but Obama will nominate his SCOTUS appointee today. I think he will nominate Sri Srinivasan, the first Asian American nominee. I also think he will nominate Ketanji Brown Jackson to fill his position on the DC Circuit, the next most important court.
The GOP already create problems for themselves in blocking Srinivasan, but Brown Jackson could put them in a further bind. Either they support her, which makes her a great very liberal SCOTUS pick for the next opening and also undermines their argument for not backing Sri, or they oppose her, and thus unfairly stop both a qualified Asian American and a qualified African American women at the same time.
After that Brexit crack and the terrible borrowing numbers the budget surprise had better be a unicorn out the hat, a rabbit won't cut it. Does he even want to be Leader? Misrepresenting the OBR and bringing the EU Referendum into the Budget he may as well have got his dick out and wandered round the Tory benches slapping Leavers in the face with it.
» show previous quotes I was an immigrant worker at an american amusement park (one of the biggest, not Disney) in 1998... Not new. But the overseas workers were, like me, students from Europe, primarily UK, mixed in with students from universities in surrounding states. I've heard this has changed more recently, with a significant increase of the number of overseas, as the wages have stayed pegged to a stalled minimum wage.
Walt Disney are not alone , most American corporations do it including Hi Tech, high pay ones. Just read the Register or The Channel and it is full of it.
Personally I'd go for the Meekado given the Pooh-Bah approach to dissenters.
I still don't understand how you see the Leave campaign as being empowered to construct an alternative. Because if the campaign was unaminous the remainers would immediately (and correctly) say "But they can't guarantee that will happen - rather than [say] EEA, it could be a disastrous exit with no agreements". If Cameron were to say something like "I promise that we will do our best to negotiate our future outside the EU in line with the agreed views of the Leave campaign" you'd have a fair point. But he hasn't, and won't. At the moment what you're saying is akin to criticising England for not having a settled first XV on the basis that people in the West Stand are arguing about whether Farrell or Tuilagi should be at 12.
It is not in the government's gift to tell opponents how they should wish to oppose its policy.
The referendum will deliver Leave or Remain and a mandate for future action accordingly. If Leave, the meaning of Leave will be discerned primarily from the way in which the Leave camp has conducted its campaign. At present, that's not going to be very informative, to put it mildly.
It is for the Leave camp to construct a prospectus. Remain has done that. It may well be that the Leave prospectus would lack plausibility (certainly Leavers aren't shy about suggesting that about the Remain prospectus) but right now it hasn't even got to the stage of clarity or coherence.
Continuing the logic, how should a responsible government discern its appropriate course of action if there *wasn't* a completely clear prospectus? Also, should a responsible government really use as its primary source of guidance a view put forward by a mishmash of individuals acting in a private capcity, some elected and some unelected (in general terms), but none elected to fulfil that role in the governance of the country? Seems a surprising choice.
A choice would be much better, I agree; but how would that work in reality? Is there a choice around which the Leave side could have coalesced? I'd have thought that several options on the ballot paper would make a Remain vote more likely as Leavers would split along lines we see on here.
Easy win for the Chancellor, the income goes to local councils - not his problem. Is he going to compensate Manchester whose Northern Powerhouse deal was built on them keeping local growth in business rates?
Personally I'd go for the Meekado given the Pooh-Bah approach to dissenters.
I still don't understand how you see the Leave campaign as being empowered to construct an alternative. Because if the campaign was unaminous the remainers would immediately (and correctly) say "But they can't guarantee that will happen - rather than [say] EEA, it could be a disastrous exit with no agreements". If Cameron were to say something like "I promise that we will do our best to negotiate our future outside the EU in line with the agreed views of the Leave campaign" you'd have a fair point. But he hasn't, and won't. At the moment what you're saying is akin to criticising England for not having a settled first XV on the basis that people in the West Stand are arguing about whether Farrell or Tuilagi should be at 12.
It is not in the government's gift to tell opponents how they should wish to oppose its policy.
The referendum will deliver Leave or Remain and a mandate for future action accordingly. If Leave, the meaning of Leave will be discerned primarily from the way in which the Leave camp has conducted its campaign. At present, that's not going to be very informative, to put it mildly.
It is for the Leave camp to construct a prospectus. Remain has done that. It may well be that the Leave prospectus would lack plausibility (certainly Leavers aren't shy about suggesting that about the Remain prospectus) but right now it hasn't even got to the stage of clarity or coherence.
Continuing the logic, how should a responsible government discern its appropriate course of action if there *wasn't* a completely clear prospectus? Also, should a responsible government really use as its primary source of guidance a view put forward by a mishmash of individuals acting in a private capcity, some elected and some unelected (in general terms), but none elected to fulfil that role in the governance of the country? Seems a surprising choice.
A choice would be much better, I agree; but how would that work in reality? Is there a choice around which the Leave side could have coalesced? I'd have thought that several options on the ballot paper would make a Remain vote more likely as Leavers would split along lines we see on here.
Easy win for the Chancellor, the income goes to local councils - not his problem. Is he going to compensate Manchester whose Northern Powerhouse deal was built on them keeping local growth in business rates?
Putting public employers pension contributions up is going to be quite a knock to NHS and similar sectors too.
The problem with getting rid of business rates is that it encourages councils to build residential rather than commercial, as they get revenue from that. Would prefer govt cut national insurance, as that helps business but also workers.
Comments
Actually it was a decent PMQs from Corbyn, had Dave on difficult ground.
The irony is of course this is the one day of the year political saddos don't care about PMQs
My suggestion would be a reversal of the benefit-in-kind tax treatment of employer-provided private health insurance.
Maybe also something on simplification of marginal income tax rates alongside a rise in the 40% threshold?
Do we have a budget bingo market anywhere?
Corbyn's air pollution delusions:
It's correct that over 99% of solar capacity in the UK has been installed since David Cameron became PM https://t.co/p43MXeRV08 #PMQs
One in six European babies is now born in the UK. Incredible repercussions for maternity units, midwives, schools, teachers.
I still don't understand how you see the Leave campaign as being empowered to construct an alternative. Because if the campaign was unaminous the remainers would immediately (and correctly) say "But they can't guarantee that will happen - rather than [say] EEA, it could be a disastrous exit with no agreements". If Cameron were to say something like "I promise that we will do our best to negotiate our future outside the EU in line with the agreed views of the Leave campaign" you'd have a fair point. But he hasn't, and won't. At the moment what you're saying is akin to criticising England for not having a settled first XV on the basis that people in the West Stand are arguing about whether Farrell or Tuilagi should be at 12.
New GOP delegate count:
Trump - 696
Cruz - 417
Kasich - 146
Uncommitted - 26
I think he has been a moderately decent Chancellor, broadly going in the right direction whilst failing to do much about some of the key the underlying issues we face such as stupidly high house prices, too many imports and a lack of skills in the economy. Blame not solely at his door though.
Wealth inequality has definitely grown as well, there must be a sensible, effective and fair way of getting a bit more from the "1%" or even 0.1%. This is getting noticed some way beyond the usual lefty anti-capitalist circles who think salaries should be capped at £50k or whatever.
My private medical provided by my employer has a policy value of c.£2.5k and HMRC make it tax deductible; I'm a 40% taxpayer.
So I basically paid over a grand for it last year.
Not sure it's worth it.
Long Supreme Court vacancies used to be more common https://t.co/EWph7HJQJ5 https://t.co/U7hRWoXOyZ
The referendum will deliver Leave or Remain and a mandate for future action accordingly. If Leave, the meaning of Leave will be discerned primarily from the way in which the Leave camp has conducted its campaign. At present, that's not going to be very informative, to put it mildly.
It is for the Leave camp to construct a prospectus. Remain has done that. It may well be that the Leave prospectus would lack plausibility (certainly Leavers aren't shy about suggesting that about the Remain prospectus) but right now it hasn't even got to the stage of clarity or coherence.
To really encourage companies to offer it, make the cost of insurance deductible against corporation tax - but only on condition that all employees are enrolled if they wish to be. Imagine what would happen to NHS demand if Tesco could be persuaded to offer comprehensive health insurance to all their employees.
Is there one anywhere else?
This was the market as this morning
https://twitter.com/LadPolitics/status/710026591376646144
Chris Leslie's squad coordinating outfits #pmqs https://t.co/EDd87yEE0l
The question isn't "is the grass on the other side of the fence green or yellow?", it's "do you want to be on this side of the fence or not?"
Personally speaking, I want to be on the other side of the fence. I'd rather the grass was green, but I would prefer yellow grass to the slough of despond* that we are currently standing in
* It looks green, but...
Kevin Meagher
'Mr Deputy Speaker' comes out as 'Diabetes Beaker' on BBC subtitles #Budget2016
The GOP already create problems for themselves in blocking Srinivasan, but Brown Jackson could put them in a further bind. Either they support her, which makes her a great very liberal SCOTUS pick for the next opening and also undermines their argument for not backing Sri, or they oppose her, and thus unfairly stop both a qualified Asian American and a qualified African American women at the same time.
It took Freud years and several theses-to get an '.ian'. I'd stick with that
Time for a change at COTE ?
Gosh - borrowing up from £4.6bn to £21.4bn in 2018-19. Almost £16bn off course. #Budget16
Edit: He says it will raise 9bn but will cut the headline rate of corp tax from 18% to 17%
16/17 £55.5bn deficit (+£6bn)
17/18 £38.8bn deficit (+14bn)
18/19 £21.4bn deficit (+21.5bn)
Adam Boulton
GO targeting help for small business - one of the heartlands for #Brexit. No business rates for 600k of them.
@DannyShawBBC ·
Govt's drugs advisers say "poppers", used mainly by gay men to enhance sexual experience, can't be covered by the new legal highs ban
notme said:
» show previous quotes
I was an immigrant worker at an american amusement park (one of the biggest, not Disney) in 1998... Not new. But the overseas workers were, like me, students from Europe, primarily UK, mixed in with students from universities in surrounding states. I've heard this has changed more recently, with a significant increase of the number of overseas, as the wages have stayed pegged to a stalled minimum wage.
Walt Disney are not alone , most American corporations do it including Hi Tech, high pay ones. Just read the Register or The Channel and it is full of it.
Corporation tax:
28% in 2010.
17% in 2020.
Business rates for 600,000 small businesses:
Dead.
Now that's a legacy.
He gets my vote in the next Tory leadership election
LauraK
Other big moves on devolution, Greater Manchester will get some powers over criminal justice + many more elected mayors
East Anglia, West of England and Lincolnshire to get elected mayors #budget2016
Disability budget will rise by more than £1bn - will spend more supporting disabled people than any point under Labour #Budget2016
As revealed ahead of budget, Osborne grants £115m funding to combat homelessness & rough sleeping #budget2016