I think the big flaw in his analysis is the statement that 'Conservative divisions aren’t going away'. It really doesn't look like that within the party, at least as far as I can see. We shouldn't give too much salience to current issues. Everything will look different on June 24th.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but a few months ago weren't you also confidently predicting that the divisions over Europe would never get as vitriolic in the first place as they have now done?
I think Corbyn has much more deep rooted personal problems than these. He is austere, humourless, not particularly bright, has a grating voice, boring as hell and is becoming distinctly unlikeable. His USP- straight talking, and being unspun is as tired and drab as his dress sense.
Corbyn is a throwback to the grey, petty politics of the 70's. If there was a leadership election tomorrow, apart from the usual head banging cheerleaders, I doubt he would make anything like the inroads he did last year.
Corbyn has pushed his luck too far. He's now looking vindictive and mean spirited which isn't an attractive look for anyone least of all someone trying to win the public's affection and support
How did we get from there to here? I can't remember a time when politics for the centre centre left has looked so bleak.
Can you even imagine the headbangers who could be leading the government after the referendum?
After the other elections are out of the way, that should be the get out the vote message by the non Tory remainers.
Farages braying face and the message "imagine him in charge"
But where can we go? Farage Johnson Corbyn McDonnel Gove IDS Patel Livingstone Grayling.....I think I'm going to vomit
I think Corbyn has much more deep rooted personal problems than these. He is austere, humourless, not particularly bright, has a grating voice, boring as hell and is becoming distinctly unlikeable. His USP- straight talking, and being unspun is as tired and drab as his dress sense.
Corbyn is a throwback to the grey, petty politics of the 70's. If there was a leadership election tomorrow, apart from the usual head banging cheerleaders, I doubt he would make anything like the inroads he did last year.
Corbyn has pushed his luck too far. He's now looking vindictive and mean spirited which isn't an attractive look for anyone least of all someone trying to win the public's affection and support
How did we get from there to here? I can't remember a time when politics for the centre centre left has looked so bleak.
Can you even imagine the headbangers who could be leading the government after the referendum?
After the other elections are out of the way, that should be the get out the vote message by the non Tory remainers.
Farages braying face and the message "imagine him in charge"
On the other hand, Alastair (né antifrank) was confidently saying in early 2015 that NOM would be value at even shorter odds than were on offer at the time...
If we were all on the SNP landslide like the author, then we could lecture him about his lack of prognostication chops!
Are Labour actually proposing to restrict PETs (potentially-exempt transfers)?
Ironically, it was Gord who saved me a packet of IHT by doubling the nil-rate band for widowers (my late Dad). Some of his PETs would have been ineffective otherwise, although he did make others well in advance...
On the other hand, Alastair (né antifrank) was confidently saying in early 2015 that NOM would be value at even shorter odds than were on offer at the time...
I think the big flaw in his analysis is the statement that 'Conservative divisions aren’t going away'. It really doesn't look like that within the party, at least as far as I can see. We shouldn't give too much salience to current issues. Everything will look different on June 24th.
It only takes a handful to destroy a small majority. Even if much of the Conservative party is ready and willing to unite after 23 June, a hardcore seem determined to create misery for the Prime Minister and a softcore seem willing to tolerate them doing so.
I think Corbyn has much more deep rooted personal problems than these. He is austere, humourless, not particularly bright, has a grating voice, boring as hell and is becoming distinctly unlikeable. His USP- straight talking, and being unspun is as tired and drab as his dress sense.
Corbyn is a throwback to the grey, petty politics of the 70's. If there was a leadership election tomorrow, apart from the usual head banging cheerleaders, I doubt he would make anything like the inroads he did last year.
Corbyn has pushed his luck too far. He's now looking vindictive and mean spirited which isn't an attractive look for anyone least of all someone trying to win the public's affection and support
How did we get from there to here? I can't remember a time when politics for the centre centre left has looked so bleak.
Can you even imagine the headbangers who could be leading the government after the referendum?
After the other elections are out of the way, that should be the get out the vote message by the non Tory remainers.
Farages braying face and the message "imagine him in charge"
He won't be in charge...
His is the recogniseable face of the Leavers. His shadowy mates in the Tory Leave faction will think the same.
Labour could learn something - people like the idea of being able to do what they want with their hard earned money.
But that money wasn't earned, it was stolen from the British taxpayer.
pretty accusatory....
Did Cameron not pretty much admit that the inheritance tax "gift" originated from his dad's offshore fund?
In other words, use of inheritance tax as a transfer mechanism (which I agree is perfectly legitimate) is a red herring: the problem is that the money is only in any of the Camerons' possession in the first place because of his dad's offshore fund.
Labour could learn something - people like the idea of being able to do what they want with their hard earned money.
But that money wasn't earned, it was stolen from the British taxpayer.
pretty accusatory....
Did Cameron not pretty much admit that the inheritance tax "gift" originated from his dad's offshore fund?
In other words, use of inheritance tax as a transfer mechanism (which I agree is perfectly legitimate) is a red herring: the problem is that the money is only in any of the Camerons' possession in the first place because of his dad's offshore fund.
You presumably think all money belongs naturally to the state? I bet you don't think Brown spent too much either...
I think Corbyn has much more deep rooted personal problems than these. He is austere, humourless, not particularly bright, has a grating voice, boring as hell and is becoming distinctly unlikeable. His USP- straight talking, and being unspun is as tired and drab as his dress sense.
Corbyn is a throwback to the grey, petty politics of the 70's. If there was a leadership election tomorrow, apart from the usual head banging cheerleaders, I doubt he would make anything like the inroads he did last year.
Corbyn has pushed his luck too far. He's now looking vindictive and mean spirited which isn't an attractive look for anyone least of all someone trying to win the public's affection and support
How did we get from there to here? I can't remember a time when politics for the centre centre left has looked so bleak.
Can you even imagine the headbangers who could be leading the government after the referendum?
After the other elections are out of the way, that should be the get out the vote message by the non Tory remainers.
Farages braying face and the message "imagine him in charge"
He won't be in charge...
His is the recogniseable face of the Leavers. His shadowy mates in the Tory Leave faction will think the same.
It will work to GOTV.
Oh comments like this make me wish even more for a Leave win.
Labour could learn something - people like the idea of being able to do what they want with their hard earned money.
But that money wasn't earned, it was stolen from the British taxpayer.
pretty accusatory....
Did Cameron not pretty much admit that the inheritance tax "gift" originated from his dad's offshore fund?
In other words, use of inheritance tax as a transfer mechanism (which I agree is perfectly legitimate) is a red herring: the problem is that the money is only in any of the Camerons' possession in the first place because of his dad's offshore fund.
You presumably think all money belongs naturally to the state? I bet you don't think Brown spent too much either...
Whether or not the tax rates are too high/low is a different question. It doesn't change the fact that us average joes have to abide by them no matter what our opinions on them are, while Cameron's dad desperately dodged them.
I think the big flaw in his analysis is the statement that 'Conservative divisions aren’t going away'. It really doesn't look like that within the party, at least as far as I can see. We shouldn't give too much salience to current issues. Everything will look different on June 24th.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but a few months ago weren't you also confidently predicting that the divisions over Europe would never get as vitriolic in the first place as they have now done?
Yes, I was right. They aren't as vitriolic as the media are making out. .
What you have to appreciate is that opinion in the Conservative Party is very evenly split. I appreciate that at first sight that sounds bad, but in a strange way it works to dampen down the vitriol. That's because every party member, and every MP, has close friends who are on the other side of the divide. We are - largely - agreeing to differ, not least because the majority of both MPs and members are on one side or the other only on the balance of the arguments.
For example: my MP - the wonderful Nus Ghani in Wealden - is firmly Leave. Next door in Lewes, Maria Caulfield is even more strongly Leave. Adjacent are Eastbourne and Bexhill & Battle, where Caroline Ansell and Huw Merriman are staying neutral. Next to Eastbourne is Hastings & Rye, with Amber Rudd firmly Remain. To our north we have Tom Tugendhat in Tonbridge & Malling - he's also strongly Remain, as is Greg Clark in Tunbridge Wells.
These constituencies often work together. Many of us have personally helped to get these MPs elected, and will do so again. There's no vitriol.
Labour could learn something - people like the idea of being able to do what they want with their hard earned money.
But that money wasn't earned, it was stolen from the British taxpayer.
pretty accusatory....
Did Cameron not pretty much admit that the inheritance tax "gift" originated from his dad's offshore fund?
In other words, use of inheritance tax as a transfer mechanism (which I agree is perfectly legitimate) is a red herring: the problem is that the money is only in any of the Camerons' possession in the first place because of his dad's offshore fund.
You presumably think all money belongs naturally to the state? I bet you don't think Brown spent too much either...
Whether or not the tax rules are fair is a different question. It doesn't change the fact that is average joes have to abide my them no matter what our opinions on them are, while Cameron's dad desperately dodged them.
Have you missed the really quite well analysed details about the fund on here this weekend? I suggest reading the last few threads for details...
Cameron's actions (or those of his dad) have been presented as nefarious, with big implicating questions about 'whether' he did anything wrong making it clear what people are expected to and probably will think.
Even if people agree on the gift thing, they likely won't connect that reasonable act for themselves with shifty old Cameron doing that and, the way matters are presented, a whole bunch of other things, it will be assumed.
So it seems possible the public will add it to the general reasons to distrust him, of which there have been many pronounced lately from various quarters, even if in the specific instance they don't agree he did anything wrong on issue x, for instance.
Labour could learn something - people like the idea of being able to do what they want with their hard earned money.
But that money wasn't earned, it was stolen from the British taxpayer.
pretty accusatory....
Did Cameron not pretty much admit that the inheritance tax "gift" originated from his dad's offshore fund?
In other words, use of inheritance tax as a transfer mechanism (which I agree is perfectly legitimate) is a red herring: the problem is that the money is only in any of the Camerons' possession in the first place because of his dad's offshore fund.
Labour could learn something - people like the idea of being able to do what they want with their hard earned money.
But that money wasn't earned, it was stolen from the British taxpayer.
pretty accusatory....
Did Cameron not pretty much admit that the inheritance tax "gift" originated from his dad's offshore fund?
In other words, use of inheritance tax as a transfer mechanism (which I agree is perfectly legitimate) is a red herring: the problem is that the money is only in any of the Camerons' possession in the first place because of his dad's offshore fund.
No, he 'admitted' he had personally invested a modest sum in the fund, which generated him a modest profit, entirely subject to UK taxes.
But yeah, I suppose if père had generated most of his wealth illegitimately, and then passed it on to Dave, on death or otherwise, that could perhaps be of interest. "The sins of the fathers, etc..."
But we're a million miles from demonstrating that, at the moment.
And the sums mentioned so far seem quite modest, in any case...
It only takes a handful to destroy a small majority. Even if much of the Conservative party is ready and willing to unite after 23 June, a hardcore seem determined to create misery for the Prime Minister and a softcore seem willing to tolerate them doing so.
That's true, but I think it's a mistake to assume that will remain the case, for three reasons:
1. On June 24th, the current big issue will have been decided.
2. Cameron has attracted (like all successful politicians, and most unsuccessful ones) enemies and ill-wishers along the way. But he's departing anyway in the not-too-distant future. The obvious gambit for everyone will be to protest loyalty to him (whether sincere or not), because he's going to be history anyway, whilst jostling for position in the post-Cameron era.
3. The next leader is likely to be a unifying figure.
You presumably think all money belongs naturally to the state? I bet you don't think Brown spent too much either...
Whether or not the tax rates are too high/low is a different question. It doesn't change the fact that us average joes have to abide by them no matter what our opinions on them are, while Cameron's dad desperately dodged them.
It's a bit hyperbolic to say he desperately dodged them. The reality is that practically all taxes are optional to some degree. The thing is, that the primary taxes which are very difficult to avoid (PAYE and various forms of Purchase Tax) are the only taxes the bulk of the population ever experience.
Labour could learn something - people like the idea of being able to do what they want with their hard earned money.
But that money wasn't earned, it was stolen from the British taxpayer.
pretty accusatory....
Did Cameron not pretty much admit that the inheritance tax "gift" originated from his dad's offshore fund?
In other words, use of inheritance tax as a transfer mechanism (which I agree is perfectly legitimate) is a red herring: the problem is that the money is only in any of the Camerons' possession in the first place because of his dad's offshore fund.
Labour could learn something - people like the idea of being able to do what they want with their hard earned money.
But that money wasn't earned, it was stolen from the British taxpayer.
pretty accusatory....
Did Cameron not pretty much admit that the inheritance tax "gift" originated from his dad's offshore fund?
In other words, use of inheritance tax as a transfer mechanism (which I agree is perfectly legitimate) is a red herring: the problem is that the money is only in any of the Camerons' possession in the first place because of his dad's offshore fund.
No, he 'admitted' he had personally invested a modest sum in the fund, which generated him a modest profit, entirely subject to UK taxes.
But yeah, I suppose if père had generated most of his wealth illegitimately, and then passed it on to Dave, on death or otherwise, that could perhaps be of interest. "The sins of the fathers, etc..."
But we're a million miles from demonstrating that, at the moment.
And the sums mentioned so far seem quite modest, in any case...
I might be wrong on this, but I'm pretty sure I read that No 10 had been asked if the inheritance tax "gift" was made up of money that Cameron's mum had been left from his dad's Blairmore fund, and that No 10 had responded that that was a "private matter" (which, given what we saw earlier this week, would be as good as an admission).
I might be wrong on this, but I'm pretty sure I read that No 10 had been asked if the inheritance tax "gift" was made up of money that Cameron's mum had been left from his dad's Blairmore fund, and that No 10 had responded that that was a "private matter" (which, given what we saw earlier this week, would be as good as an admission).
Rather than a gift, the Cameron family could have set up a Deed of Variation. Like the Milibands.
Completely above board, of course. It would also have been potentially more tax efficient, since the gift route saves all the IHT only if the donor lives for seven years after the gift, whereas the Milliband route doesn't have that problem.
You presumably think all money belongs naturally to the state? I bet you don't think Brown spent too much either...
Whether or not the tax rates are too high/low is a different question. It doesn't change the fact that us average joes have to abide by them no matter what our opinions on them are, while Cameron's dad desperately dodged them.
It's a bit hyperbolic to say he desperately dodged them. The reality is that practically all taxes are optional to some degree. The thing is, that the primary taxes which are very difficult to avoid (PAYE and various forms of Purchase Tax) are the only taxes the bulk of the population ever experience.
Yes. The vast majority of folk just have PAYE, VAT and various duties. Tax-planning doesn't become possible for the average joe. The world where off shore earnings get taxed on repatriation is a very rarified one.
Labour could learn something - people like the idea of being able to do what they want with their hard earned money.
But that money wasn't earned, it was stolen from the British taxpayer.
pretty accusatory....
Did Cameron not pretty much admit that the inheritance tax "gift" originated from his dad's offshore fund?
In other words, use of inheritance tax as a transfer mechanism (which I agree is perfectly legitimate) is a red herring: the problem is that the money is only in any of the Camerons' possession in the first place because of his dad's offshore fund.
You presumably think all money belongs naturally to the state? I bet you don't think Brown spent too much either...
Whether or not the tax rates are too high/low is a different question. It doesn't change the fact that us average joes have to abide by them no matter what our opinions on them are, while Cameron's dad desperately dodged them.
Sorry, but - if you were wealthy enough - you too would have opportunity and cause to explore the highways and byways of the tax labyrinth. Don't pretend you (or most likely your accountant, as a matter of course) wouldn't...
"No man in the country is under the smallest obligation, moral or other, so to arrange his legal relations to his business or property as to enable the Inland Revenue to put the largest possible shovel in his stores. The Inland Revenue is not slow, and quite rightly, to take every advantage which is open to it under the Taxing Statutes for the purposes of depleting the taxpayer's pocket. And the taxpayer is in like manner entitled to be astute to prevent, so far as he honestly can, the depletion of his means by the Inland Revenue" Lord Clyde, 1929
I might be wrong on this, but I'm pretty sure I read that No 10 had been asked if the inheritance tax "gift" was made up of money that Cameron's mum had been left from his dad's Blairmore fund, and that No 10 had responded that that was a "private matter" (which, given what we saw earlier this week, would be as good as an admission).
Rather than a gift, the Cameron family could have set up a Deed of Variation. Like the Milibands.
Completely above board, of course. It would also have been potentially more tax efficient, since the gift route saves all the IHT only if the donor lives for seven years after the gift, whereas the Milliband route doesn't have that problem.
The impression I got was Cameron Snr. was already clued-up, and utilised his nil-rate band by leaving ~£300k to Dave (as opposed, per Miliband Snr., everything to wife), thus rendering any post-death variation moot...
Cameron's mother's gift [soon after her husband's death] is entirely separate, but timely and efficient, nevertheless.
The impression I got was Cameron Snr. was already clued-up, and utilised his nil-rate band by leaving ~£300k to Dave (as opposed, per Miliband Snr., everything to wife), thus rendering any post-death variation moot...
Cameron's mother's gift [soon after her husband's death] is entirely separate, but timely and efficient, nevertheless.
It's an interesting theme article since UK politics is harder to predict than I've ever known. It's entirely unpredictable who will lead either major party in 2020, whether either party will split, or how the current anti-establishment mood in the electorate will play out. The Tories should get a bounce with their new leader if the election isn't horribly divisive, but people are a bit tired of them and if the new leader proves a dud they will struggle.
I'd hate to put serious money on any result, frankly.
Labour could learn something - people like the idea of being able to do what they want with their hard earned money.
But that money wasn't earned, it was stolen from the British taxpayer.
pretty accusatory....
Did Cameron not pretty much admit that the inheritance tax "gift" originated from his dad's offshore fund?
In other words, use of inheritance tax as a transfer mechanism (which I agree is perfectly legitimate) is a red herring: the problem is that the money is only in any of the Camerons' possession in the first place because of his dad's offshore fund.
You presumably think all money belongs naturally to the state? I bet you don't think Brown spent too much either...
Whether or not the tax rules are fair is a different question. It doesn't change the fact that is average joes have to abide my them no matter what our opinions on them are, while Cameron's dad desperately dodged them.
Have you missed the really quite well analysed details about the fund on here this weekend? I suggest reading the last few threads for details...
Of course, should have read PB comments for neutral and unbiased analysis of the Conservative Party and why rich people should pay less tax. Not
It's an interesting theme article since UK politics is harder to predict than I've ever known. It's entirely unpredictable who will lead either major party in 2020, whether either party will split, or how the current anti-establishment mood in the electorate will play out. The Tories should get a bounce with their new leader if the election isn't horribly divisive, but people are a bit tired of them and if the new leader proves a dud they will struggle.
I'd hate to put serious money on any result, frankly.
Notwithstanding what I've said upthread, Alastair is probably correct that 7/4 or 6/4 on NOM is theoretically good value, if you don't mind tying up your money for up to four years. I don't think it's a compelling bet, however.
It's an interesting theme article since UK politics is harder to predict than I've ever known. It's entirely unpredictable who will lead either major party in 2020, whether either party will split, or how the current anti-establishment mood in the electorate will play out. The Tories should get a bounce with their new leader if the election isn't horribly divisive, but people are a bit tired of them and if the new leader proves a dud they will struggle.
I'd hate to put serious money on any result, frankly.
Any new Leader (bar BoJo) would not get a bounce, and I think a Boris bounce would be very shortlived.
The public do not like not getting a say in who is PM. This may well add to calls for new elections, though probably Cameron will only go this year if Leave win.
Those Betfair odds do look pretty hard to budge though.
Labour could learn something - people like the idea of being able to do what they want with their hard earned money.
But that money wasn't earned, it was stolen from the British taxpayer.
pretty accusatory....
Did Cameron not pretty much admit that the inheritance tax "gift" originated from his dad's offshore fund?
In other words, use of inheritance tax as a transfer mechanism (which I agree is perfectly legitimate) is a red herring: the problem is that the money is only in any of the Camerons' possession in the first place because of his dad's offshore fund.
You presumably think all money belongs naturally to the state? I bet you don't think Brown spent too much either...
Whether or not the tax rules are fair is a different question. It doesn't change the fact that is average joes have to abide my them no matter what our opinions on them are, while Cameron's dad desperately dodged them.
Have you missed the really quite well analysed details about the fund on here this weekend? I suggest reading the last few threads for details...
Of course, should have read PB comments for neutral and unbiased analysis of the Conservative Party and why rich people should pay less tax. Not
Labour could learn something - people like the idea of being able to do what they want with their hard earned money.
But that money wasn't earned, it was stolen from the British taxpayer.
pretty accusatory....
Did Cameron not pretty much admit that the inheritance tax "gift" originated from his dad's offshore fund?
In other words, use of inheritance tax as a transfer mechanism (which I agree is perfectly legitimate) is a red herring: the problem is that the money is only in any of the Camerons' possession in the first place because of his dad's offshore fund.
You presumably think all money belongs naturally to the state? I bet you don't think Brown spent too much either...
Whether or not the tax rules are fair is a different question. It doesn't change the fact that is average joes have to abide my them no matter what our opinions on them are, while Cameron's dad desperately dodged them.
Have you missed the really quite well analysed details about the fund on here this weekend? I suggest reading the last few threads for details...
Of course, should have read PB comments for neutral and unbiased analysis of the Conservative Party and why rich people should pay less tax. Not
Everyone should pay less tax
Pretty certain I've already cut it to the bone, but we live in hope...
Labour could learn something - people like the idea of being able to do what they want with their hard earned money.
But that money wasn't earned, it was stolen from the British taxpayer.
pretty accusatory....
Did Cameron not pretty much admit that the inheritance tax "gift" originated from his dad's offshore fund?
In other words, use of inheritance tax as a transfer mechanism (which I agree is perfectly legitimate) is a red herring: the problem is that the money is only in any of the Camerons' possession in the first place because of his dad's offshore fund.
You presumably think all money belongs naturally to the state? I bet you don't think Brown spent too much either...
Whether or not the tax rules are fair is a different question. It doesn't change the fact that is average joes have to abide my them no matter what our opinions on them are, while Cameron's dad desperately dodged them.
Have you missed the really quite well analysed details about the fund on here this weekend? I suggest reading the last few threads for details...
Of course, should have read PB comments for neutral and unbiased analysis of the Conservative Party and why rich people should pay less tax. Not
Some very clever people here who are experts or at least very well informed on issues that the media find particularly hard to communicate. Shame to ignore it and treat all information presented here as biased. Robert, for example, has answered more of my (likely stupid) banking questions than reading books and paper articles on the subject for about 6 years has managed...
It's an interesting theme article since UK politics is harder to predict than I've ever known. It's entirely unpredictable who will lead either major party in 2020, whether either party will split, or how the current anti-establishment mood in the electorate will play out. The Tories should get a bounce with their new leader if the election isn't horribly divisive, but people are a bit tired of them and if the new leader proves a dud they will struggle.
I'd hate to put serious money on any result, frankly.
Notwithstanding what I've said upthread, Alastair is probably correct that 7/4 or 6/4 on NOM is theoretically good value, if you don't mind tying up your money for up to four years. I don't think it's a compelling bet, however.
Me neither.
One thing I will say, and with humble apologies to OGH, Mark Senior, Fox and others, is how much better government worked with the Lib Dems in coalition.
There is no way Osborne's ludicrous budget would ever have seen the light of day, the personal threshold would not have been raised as quickly as it has. Basically whoever wins the next GE I hope it is with NOM as the minor party seems to be good at curbing the excesses of the major coalition party.
Labour could learn something - people like the idea of being able to do what they want with their hard earned money.
But that money wasn't earned, it was stolen from the British taxpayer.
pretty accusatory....
Did Cameron not pretty much admit that the inheritance tax "gift" originated from his dad's offshore fund?
In other words, use of inheritance tax as a transfer mechanism (which I agree is perfectly legitimate) is a red herring: the problem is that the money is only in any of the Camerons' possession in the first place because of his dad's offshore fund.
You presumably think all money belongs naturally to the state? I bet you don't think Brown spent too much either...
Whether or not the tax rules are fair is a different question. It doesn't change the fact that is average joes have to abide my them no matter what our opinions on them are, while Cameron's dad desperately dodged them.
Have you missed the really quite well analysed details about the fund on here this weekend? I suggest reading the last few threads for details...
Of course, should have read PB comments for neutral and unbiased analysis of the Conservative Party and why rich people should pay less tax. Not
Some very clever people here who are experts or at least very well informed on issues that the media find particularly hard to communicate. Shame to ignore it and treat all information presented here as biased. Robert, for example, has answered more of my (likely stupid) banking questions than reading books and paper articles on the subject for about 6 years has managed...
The problem is that what Cameron has done and the morality of it is not a question of fact, it's a question of opinion based on undefined terminology. And it's all Cameron's own stupid fault. The minute he invented the term "Aggressive Tax Avoidance" he opened himself up to be accused of it because it's a meaningless undefined term that can be applied to anyone.
Labour could learn something - people like the idea of being able to do what they want with their hard earned money.
But that money wasn't earned, it was stolen from the British taxpayer.
pretty accusatory....
Did Cameron not pretty much admit that the inheritance tax "gift" originated from his dad's offshore fund?
In other words, use of inheritance tax as a transfer mechanism (which I agree is perfectly legitimate) is a red herring: the problem is that the money is only in any of the Camerons' possession in the first place because of his dad's offshore fund.
No, he 'admitted' he had personally invested a modest sum in the fund, which generated him a modest profit, entirely subject to UK taxes.
But yeah, I suppose if père had generated most of his wealth illegitimately, and then passed it on to Dave, on death or otherwise, that could perhaps be of interest. "The sins of the fathers, etc..."
But we're a million miles from demonstrating that, at the moment.
And the sums mentioned so far seem quite modest, in any case...
I might be wrong on this, but I'm pretty sure I read that No 10 had been asked if the inheritance tax "gift" was made up of money that Cameron's mum had been left from his dad's Blairmore fund, and that No 10 had responded that that was a "private matter" (which, given what we saw earlier this week, would be as good as an admission).
No, it's a private matter. Neither Cammo's Mum (or late Dad) are running for office.
Look up where JFK's Dad made his money. Or Dubya's, and others.
Or our aristocracy, for that matter...
The children may of course be fine upstanding people, with much to offer. No-one can choose their parents.
It's an interesting theme article since UK politics is harder to predict than I've ever known. It's entirely unpredictable who will lead either major party in 2020, whether either party will split, or how the current anti-establishment mood in the electorate will play out. The Tories should get a bounce with their new leader if the election isn't horribly divisive, but people are a bit tired of them and if the new leader proves a dud they will struggle.
I'd hate to put serious money on any result, frankly.
I think a very good proxy as to the possible 2020 GE result is the course of the LD's in the polls.
Centrists despise Corbyn and the prospect of him as PM makes them stick to the Tories, however if the Tories are so despised by centrists that they can't vote Tory either then we would see upward movement for the LD's.
UKIP should be a bit higher in 2020 than 2015, but only because the potential Tory-UKIP switchers have already stayed with the Tories once from the prospect of a Labour-SNP government, the potency of the same trick weathers over time.
However it is incredibly difficult for the LD's to recover even a bit from the 2015 result, ex-LD's who have gone to Labour or UKIP will never return over the LD's sin of propping Cameron in power. But ex-LD's who have gone Tory might, even though they are not sufficient in numbers for a recovery.
Any new Leader (bar BoJo) would not get a bounce, and I think a Boris bounce would be very shortlived.
The public do not like not getting a say in who is PM.
Both Major and Brown got a bounce on becoming PM.
Both of them replaced Prime Ministers who had become very unpopular. Any new Tory leader will be replacing a popular PM. Browns bounce didn't last long either!
It's an interesting theme article since UK politics is harder to predict than I've ever known. It's entirely unpredictable who will lead either major party in 2020, whether either party will split, or how the current anti-establishment mood in the electorate will play out. The Tories should get a bounce with their new leader if the election isn't horribly divisive, but people are a bit tired of them and if the new leader proves a dud they will struggle.
I'd hate to put serious money on any result, frankly.
Notwithstanding what I've said upthread, Alastair is probably correct that 7/4 or 6/4 on NOM is theoretically good value, if you don't mind tying up your money for up to four years. I don't think it's a compelling bet, however.
Me neither.
One thing I will say, and with humble apologies to OGH, Mark Senior, Fox and others, is how much better government worked with the Lib Dems in coalition.
There is no way Osborne's ludicrous budget would ever have seen the light of day, the personal threshold would not have been raised as quickly as it has. Basically whoever wins the next GE I hope it is with NOM as the minor party seems to be good at curbing the excesses of the major coalition party.
It is down to having a part time CoE who is not under any threat of losing his job from the PM.
It's an interesting theme article since UK politics is harder to predict than I've ever known. It's entirely unpredictable who will lead either major party in 2020, whether either party will split, or how the current anti-establishment mood in the electorate will play out. The Tories should get a bounce with their new leader if the election isn't horribly divisive, but people are a bit tired of them and if the new leader proves a dud they will struggle.
I'd hate to put serious money on any result, frankly.
I think a very good proxy as to the possible 2020 GE result is the course of the LD's in the polls.
Centrists despise Corbyn and the prospect of him as PM makes them stick to the Tories, however if the Tories are so despised by centrists that they can't vote Tory either then we would see upward movement for the LD's.
UKIP should be a bit higher in 2020 than 2015, but only because the potential Tory-UKIP switchers have already stayed with the Tories once from the prospect of a Labour-SNP government, the potency of the same trick weathers over time.
However it is incredibly difficult for the LD's to recover even a bit from the 2015 result, ex-LD's who have gone to Labour or UKIP will never return over the LD's sin of propping Cameron in power. But ex-LD's who have gone Tory might, even though they are not sufficient in numbers for a recovery.
Agree UKIP will be higher.
O/T On your point on 'next in line' GOP nominees yesterday, you forgot that Dole was runner-up in 1988 and Romney was runner-up in votes and states in 2008
Any new Leader (bar BoJo) would not get a bounce, and I think a Boris bounce would be very shortlived.
The public do not like not getting a say in who is PM.
Both Major and Brown got a bounce on becoming PM.
Both of them replaced Prime Ministers who had become very unpopular. Any new Tory leader will be replacing a popular PM. Browns bounce didn't last long either!
It's an interesting theme article since UK politics is harder to predict than I've ever known. It's entirely unpredictable who will lead either major party in 2020, whether either party will split, or how the current anti-establishment mood in the electorate will play out. The Tories should get a bounce with their new leader if the election isn't horribly divisive, but people are a bit tired of them and if the new leader proves a dud they will struggle.
I'd hate to put serious money on any result, frankly.
I think a very good proxy as to the possible 2020 GE result is the course of the LD's in the polls.
Centrists despise Corbyn and the prospect of him as PM makes them stick to the Tories, however if the Tories are so despised by centrists that they can't vote Tory either then we would see upward movement for the LD's.
UKIP should be a bit higher in 2020 than 2015, but only because the potential Tory-UKIP switchers have already stayed with the Tories once from the prospect of a Labour-SNP government, the potency of the same trick weathers over time.
However it is incredibly difficult for the LD's to recover even a bit from the 2015 result, ex-LD's who have gone to Labour or UKIP will never return over the LD's sin of propping Cameron in power. But ex-LD's who have gone Tory might, even though they are not sufficient in numbers for a recovery.
There are only 7 seats in the UK where the Lib Dems would win on a swing of 5% (and they need that swing from each of three different parties).
There are only 16 seats where the Lib Dems would win on a swing of 10% and again, that's 10% swing against each of three parties.
I think they would be better trying, somehow, to cling onto Sheffield Hallam and Orkney and Shetland.
Comments
Some shrink is rubbing their hands with all the work they are going to getting from a Mr. j. Speith in the coming months!!!
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/719268834906124289
Labour could learn something - people like the idea of being able to do what they want with their hard earned money.
Or for Speith to fight back.
What a cracking Masters!
Ironically, it was Gord who saved me a packet of IHT by doubling the nil-rate band for widowers (my late Dad). Some of his PETs would have been ineffective otherwise, although he did make others well in advance...
It will work to GOTV.
In other words, use of inheritance tax as a transfer mechanism (which I agree is perfectly legitimate) is a red herring: the problem is that the money is only in any of the Camerons' possession in the first place because of his dad's offshore fund.
Inheritance tax relaxation is a huge vote winner for anyone with either money or a house, and children.
And opposing it is a HUGE BEAR TRAP for Labour that they'll likely walk straight into. Labour look anti aspiration if they oppose.
Something very refreshing about naivty of Danny.
Oh Lee Lee Lee...showing why he will never win a major.
What you have to appreciate is that opinion in the Conservative Party is very evenly split. I appreciate that at first sight that sounds bad, but in a strange way it works to dampen down the vitriol. That's because every party member, and every MP, has close friends who are on the other side of the divide. We are - largely - agreeing to differ, not least because the majority of both MPs and members are on one side or the other only on the balance of the arguments.
For example: my MP - the wonderful Nus Ghani in Wealden - is firmly Leave. Next door in Lewes, Maria Caulfield is even more strongly Leave. Adjacent are Eastbourne and Bexhill & Battle, where Caroline Ansell and Huw Merriman are staying neutral. Next to Eastbourne is Hastings & Rye, with Amber Rudd firmly Remain. To our north we have Tom Tugendhat in Tonbridge & Malling - he's also strongly Remain, as is Greg Clark in Tunbridge Wells.
These constituencies often work together. Many of us have personally helped to get these MPs elected, and will do so again. There's no vitriol.
Even if people agree on the gift thing, they likely won't connect that reasonable act for themselves with shifty old Cameron doing that and, the way matters are presented, a whole bunch of other things, it will be assumed.
So it seems possible the public will add it to the general reasons to distrust him, of which there have been many pronounced lately from various quarters, even if in the specific instance they don't agree he did anything wrong on issue x, for instance.
Good night all
But yeah, I suppose if père had generated most of his wealth illegitimately, and then passed it on to Dave, on death or otherwise, that could perhaps be of interest. "The sins of the fathers, etc..."
But we're a million miles from demonstrating that, at the moment.
And the sums mentioned so far seem quite modest, in any case...
1. On June 24th, the current big issue will have been decided.
2. Cameron has attracted (like all successful politicians, and most unsuccessful ones) enemies and ill-wishers along the way. But he's departing anyway in the not-too-distant future. The obvious gambit for everyone will be to protest loyalty to him (whether sincere or not), because he's going to be history anyway, whilst jostling for position in the post-Cameron era.
3. The next leader is likely to be a unifying figure.
Completely above board, of course. It would also have been potentially more tax efficient, since the gift route saves all the IHT only if the donor lives for seven years after the gift, whereas the Milliband route doesn't have that problem.
"No man in the country is under the smallest obligation, moral or other, so to arrange his legal relations to his business or property as to enable the Inland Revenue to put the largest possible shovel in his stores. The Inland Revenue is not slow, and quite rightly, to take every advantage which is open to it under the Taxing Statutes for the purposes of depleting the taxpayer's pocket. And the taxpayer is in like manner entitled to be astute to prevent, so far as he honestly can, the depletion of his means by the Inland Revenue" Lord Clyde, 1929
Paddy Power an hour ago had Speith at 1/8 and Danny Willett at 11/1
Cameron's mother's gift [soon after her husband's death] is entirely separate, but timely and efficient, nevertheless.
I'd hate to put serious money on any result, frankly.
The public do not like not getting a say in who is PM. This may well add to calls for new elections, though probably Cameron will only go this year if Leave win.
Those Betfair odds do look pretty hard to budge though.
One thing I will say, and with humble apologies to OGH, Mark Senior, Fox and others, is how much better government worked with the Lib Dems in coalition.
There is no way Osborne's ludicrous budget would ever have seen the light of day, the personal threshold would not have been raised as quickly as it has. Basically whoever wins the next GE I hope it is with NOM as the minor party seems to be good at curbing the excesses of the major coalition party.
Look up where JFK's Dad made his money. Or Dubya's, and others.
Or our aristocracy, for that matter...
The children may of course be fine upstanding people, with much to offer. No-one can choose their parents.
Centrists despise Corbyn and the prospect of him as PM makes them stick to the Tories, however if the Tories are so despised by centrists that they can't vote Tory either then we would see upward movement for the LD's.
UKIP should be a bit higher in 2020 than 2015, but only because the potential Tory-UKIP switchers have already stayed with the Tories once from the prospect of a Labour-SNP government, the potency of the same trick weathers over time.
However it is incredibly difficult for the LD's to recover even a bit from the 2015 result, ex-LD's who have gone to Labour or UKIP will never return over the LD's sin of propping Cameron in power. But ex-LD's who have gone Tory might, even though they are not sufficient in numbers for a recovery.
O/T On your point on 'next in line' GOP nominees yesterday, you forgot that Dole was runner-up in 1988 and Romney was runner-up in votes and states in 2008
There are only 16 seats where the Lib Dems would win on a swing of 10% and again, that's 10% swing against each of three parties.
I think they would be better trying, somehow, to cling onto Sheffield Hallam and Orkney and Shetland.
(sorry)