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
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.
Amusingly, I was reading the other day a parliamentary debate where a member was arguing against using vague ill defined terms even against those deserving condemnation, because leaving the interpretation to the ages was fraught with problems and even good people might find themselves caught under such terms in future, so undefined were they. It was a debate from 1656. We never learn I guess. (It was a debate about bringing in a law specifically against Quakers, for the record)
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.
Forget about Sheffield Hallam and the Shetlands.
The LD only held Sheffield Hallam because of Tory support in case they needed Nick Clegg for a coalition again, and the Shetlands will be gone if Carmichael is their candidate there.
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.
In which case - what exactly is the case for FPTP?
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!
Well Cameron is as unpopular as in 2012, he's not at levels that warrant replacement yet though he is approaching them.
In any case Cameron needs to be popular enough to win the EU referendum to stay in his job, which requires 50+1 not 1/3rd of the vote, he is not that's why he needs Corbyn to save him.
Whether Corbyn will do the mistake to aid his enemy on the other side is still to be seen. It is ironic that the man who made absolutely everything possible to destroy Corbyn early on now requires his help.
Goodnight, and lets see if the Newspaper Scandal develops further.
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.
Forget about Sheffield Hallam and the Shetlands.
The LD only held Sheffield Hallam because of Tory support in case they needed Nick Clegg for a coalition again, and the Shetlands will be gone if Carmichael is their candidate there.
Looking at their remaining seats, the Lib Dem position is actually quite precarious in most of them.
Swings required to lose : -
John Pugh - 1.5% to Tory Tom Brake - 1.6% to Tory Alistair Carmichael - 1.8% to SNP Clegg's Replacement - 2.1% to Labour Greg Mulholland 3.4% to Labour Mark Williams - 4.1% to Plaid Norman Lamb - 4.1% to Tory Tim Farron - 9.2% to Tory
The worst may not be over for them. And of course it assumes they don't get a raw deal from the boundary changes and reduction. Which they almost certainly will.
There is no way Osborne's ludicrous budget would ever have seen the light of day.
Are you sure? Wasn't the omnishambles budget during the coalition?
I am sure that there are pros to a coalition, but there are also a lot of cons. The further you are from the political centre, the more cons and fewer pros you will see.
And we all know that compromise is two grown people doing what they both know to be wrong.
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
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.
Amusingly, I was reading the other day a parliamentary debate where a member was arguing against using vague ill defined terms even against those deserving condemnation, because leaving the interpretation to the ages was fraught with problems and even good people might find themselves caught under such terms in future, so undefined were they. It was a debate from 1656. We never learn I guess. (It was a debate about bringing in a law specifically against Quakers, for the record)
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
I hope some PBers profited from my beautifully crafted bet on The Masters, based on the winning margin being at least 2 strokes. In the event, Willett won by 3 strokes ..... tasty!
Minor point - the boundary changes don't require legislation.
They require a Statutory Instrument to pass both Commons and Lords.
No readings / amendments / committee etc - just one straight vote in each House.
Of course the Government could well lose it in the Lords - which is why it's worth keeping a very close eye on Lords numbers over the next two and a half years.
Well I warned a few hours ago that this could backfire on Labour.
If the narrative now changes to Labour saying they'll tax parents giving money to their children then that will be an own goal on a massive scale.
Just imagine parents / grandparents thinking about helping their children get the money for a deposit to buy their first home and wondering if Corbyn is going to tax it.
Corbyn is repulsive and I don't even care about his links to terrorism. Once in a lifetime you come across someone who you just know will be repellent to voters and I speak as someone who liked Michael Foot
Michael Foot was a little bit scruffy, but a man of honor and principle, with a towering intellect and soaring oratory, who loved his country.
Jeremy Corbyn exceeds him on this first of these, the others, not so much.
While we're on the SNP's 'progressive' record - guess what - 'Free' prescriptions simply extended the 90% of prescriptions which were already free because of age (under 16, over 60 etc), unemployment or maternity to the balance (employed better off) 10% of prescriptions - so like 'Free' University tuition - another bung for the middle class......progressive.....much?
Well I warned a few hours ago that this could backfire on Labour.
If the narrative now changes to Labour saying they'll tax parents giving money to their children then that will be an own goal on a massive scale.
Just imagine parents / grandparents thinking about helping their children get the money for a deposit to buy their first home and wondering if Corbyn is going to tax it.
Electoral suicide.
Not at all, the people you are talking about largely don't vote Labour under any circumstances.
Well I warned a few hours ago that this could backfire on Labour.
If the narrative now changes to Labour saying they'll tax parents giving money to their children then that will be an own goal on a massive scale.
Just imagine parents / grandparents thinking about helping their children get the money for a deposit to buy their first home and wondering if Corbyn is going to tax it.
Electoral suicide.
Not at all, the people you are talking about largely don't vote Labour under any circumstances.
Well I warned a few hours ago that this could backfire on Labour.
If the narrative now changes to Labour saying they'll tax parents giving money to their children then that will be an own goal on a massive scale.
Just imagine parents / grandparents thinking about helping their children get the money for a deposit to buy their first home and wondering if Corbyn is going to tax it.
Electoral suicide.
Not at all, the people you are talking about largely don't vote Labour under any circumstances.
If pitched correctly it could be very popular.
Err, if pitched correctly, it will be a disaster and will see even more aspirational Labour supporters that Blair originally attracted desert the Labour party.
On topic, The Tories are screwed if Labour ditch Corbyn for Dan Jarvis or anyone vaguely electable, basically anyone the Tories cannot characterise as a 'terrorist sympathiser'
Wrong. It depends on who they pick as Cameron's replacement and when. If it is a LEAVER then the trouble goes away.
You really ought to go on the stage as a comedian.
It's terrible wishful thinking: "I support a side, and everything will be fine if my side is in power, whatever happens."
For one thing, much will depend on the size of any win. You will probably be right if leave win by more than (say) 10%. Anything less than a 5-10% win and the most important thing would be to pick someone - leaver or remainer - who could bring the two sides together. It would be a moderate leaver, not a loonhard leaver. Look at someone who supports leave but has been fairly quiet but firm on the topic.
If remain win, it would be impossible for a hard leaver to run the party - they'd be too divisive.
And as Major found out, the hard leavers in the Conservative Party care more about disrupting the party than winning elections. That is why I shall continue to call them loons, in the same way I'd say the same about pro-Euro remainers.
Well I warned a few hours ago that this could backfire on Labour.
If the narrative now changes to Labour saying they'll tax parents giving money to their children then that will be an own goal on a massive scale.
Just imagine parents / grandparents thinking about helping their children get the money for a deposit to buy their first home and wondering if Corbyn is going to tax it.
Electoral suicide.
Not at all, the people you are talking about largely don't vote Labour under any circumstances.
If pitched correctly it could be very popular.
Very popular with all the people that already vote for you, Labour doesnt win an election ever again without appealing to a chunk of the middle class, especially as they are shedding working class votes left, right and centre. The ethnic and Guardianista vote isn't even close to being big enough, especially as the ethnic vote is slowly deserting Labour as well. Its denial of this basic bit of arithmetic that saw Corbyn elected.
Well I warned a few hours ago that this could backfire on Labour.
If the narrative now changes to Labour saying they'll tax parents giving money to their children then that will be an own goal on a massive scale.
Just imagine parents / grandparents thinking about helping their children get the money for a deposit to buy their first home and wondering if Corbyn is going to tax it.
Electoral suicide.
Not at all, the people you are talking about largely don't vote Labour under any circumstances.
If pitched correctly it could be very popular.
Very popular with all the people that already vote for you, Labour doesnt win an election ever again without appealing to a chunk of the middle class, especially as they are shedding working class votes left, right and centre. The ethnic and Guardianista vote isn't even close to being big enough, especially as the ethnic vote is slowly deserting Labour as well. Its denial of this basic bit of arithmetic that saw Corbyn elected.
"Labour doesnt win an election ever again without appealing to a chunk of the middle class"
The same can be said for the Conservatives. Leavers who see the referendum and defenestration of Cameron as a chance to dive to the right are missing the fact it consistently fails - see Hague and IDS.
While we're on the SNP's 'progressive' record - guess what - 'Free' prescriptions simply extended the 90% of prescriptions which were already free because of age (under 16, over 60 etc), unemployment or maternity to the balance (employed better off) 10% of prescriptions - so like 'Free' University tuition - another bung for the middle class......progressive.....much?
When the current Scottish Conservative Manifesto is more progressive than the previous decade of SNP policies in Government, you know the SNP have been a bit too weak in that area.
Well I warned a few hours ago that this could backfire on Labour.
If the narrative now changes to Labour saying they'll tax parents giving money to their children then that will be an own goal on a massive scale.
Just imagine parents / grandparents thinking about helping their children get the money for a deposit to buy their first home and wondering if Corbyn is going to tax it.
Electoral suicide.
Not at all, the people you are talking about largely don't vote Labour under any circumstances.
If pitched correctly it could be very popular.
Very popular with all the people that already vote for you, Labour doesnt win an election ever again without appealing to a chunk of the middle class, especially as they are shedding working class votes left, right and centre. The ethnic and Guardianista vote isn't even close to being big enough, especially as the ethnic vote is slowly deserting Labour as well. Its denial of this basic bit of arithmetic that saw Corbyn elected.
"Labour doesnt win an election ever again without appealing to a chunk of the middle class"
The same can be said for the Conservatives. Leavers who see the referendum and defenestration of Cameron as a chance to dive to the right are missing the fact it consistently fails - see Hague and IDS.
Nice try but no cigar. You are wasting your time with me, being out of the EU is more important to our country's future than the short term benefit to either party.
The dive to the left or right is besides the point. You cant win in *only* in the middle either as the LDs have proved. Winning is about keeping your core onboard AND appealing to the middle. Blair did it from the left and Thatcher from the right.
Very popular with all the people that already vote for you, Labour doesnt win an election ever again without appealing to a chunk of the middle class, especially as they are shedding working class votes left, right and centre. The ethnic and Guardianista vote isn't even close to being big enough, especially as the ethnic vote is slowly deserting Labour as well. Its denial of this basic bit of arithmetic that saw Corbyn elected.
"Labour doesnt win an election ever again without appealing to a chunk of the middle class"
The same can be said for the Conservatives. Leavers who see the referendum and defenestration of Cameron as a chance to dive to the right are missing the fact it consistently fails - see Hague and IDS.
Nice try but no cigar.
What do you mean? Are you saying that I'm not right?
If so, what do you think has changed in the electorate that would make a more right-wing party electable?
Very popular with all the people that already vote for you, Labour doesnt win an election ever again without appealing to a chunk of the middle class, especially as they are shedding working class votes left, right and centre. The ethnic and Guardianista vote isn't even close to being big enough, especially as the ethnic vote is slowly deserting Labour as well. Its denial of this basic bit of arithmetic that saw Corbyn elected.
"Labour doesnt win an election ever again without appealing to a chunk of the middle class"
The same can be said for the Conservatives. Leavers who see the referendum and defenestration of Cameron as a chance to dive to the right are missing the fact it consistently fails - see Hague and IDS.
Nice try but no cigar.
What do you mean? Are you saying that I'm not right?
If so, what do you think has changed in the electorate that would make a more right-wing party electable?
Well, for a start, Labour is now led by a man just slightly to the left of the leader who opposed Hague and IDS...
Very popular with all the people that already vote for you, Labour doesnt win an election ever again without appealing to a chunk of the middle class, especially as they are shedding working class votes left, right and centre. The ethnic and Guardianista vote isn't even close to being big enough, especially as the ethnic vote is slowly deserting Labour as well. Its denial of this basic bit of arithmetic that saw Corbyn elected.
"Labour doesnt win an election ever again without appealing to a chunk of the middle class"
The same can be said for the Conservatives. Leavers who see the referendum and defenestration of Cameron as a chance to dive to the right are missing the fact it consistently fails - see Hague and IDS.
Nice try but no cigar.
What do you mean? Are you saying that I'm not right?
If so, what do you think has changed in the electorate that would make a more right-wing party electable?
As I said below, centrism does not win election, centrism plus keeping your core on board wins elections. If Cameron sitting in the pro-EU centre causes the 10% of Tory voters on the right of the party to peel off to the kippers, Cameron loses the next election.
A whole raft on the centre ground could care less if the government was left, right or upside down as long as they were competent, Hague and IDS weren't, Thatcher was, until she lost it, when she wasn't, she was toast.
Had Cameron gone for Leave, firstly he would have won easily, and secondly the kippers would have imploded, protecting his right flank, and he could have sat in the centre ground all day long, and most of his party would have called him a hero for doing it, now, not so much.
Well I warned a few hours ago that this could backfire on Labour.
If the narrative now changes to Labour saying they'll tax parents giving money to their children then that will be an own goal on a massive scale.
Just imagine parents / grandparents thinking about helping their children get the money for a deposit to buy their first home and wondering if Corbyn is going to tax it.
Electoral suicide.
Not at all, the people you are talking about largely don't vote Labour under any circumstances.
If pitched correctly it could be very popular.
OK then - pitch it to us. Pitch us how further taxing the voters' already taxed income is a vote winner with those who have already taxed income.
Or do you think it will be electorally popular with those who have nothing to give away, don't aspire to have anything to give away, and think those who have should have it taken off them? And why do you think these Corbynistas aren't already in the Labour column?
On topic, The Tories are screwed if Labour ditch Corbyn for Dan Jarvis or anyone vaguely electable, basically anyone the Tories cannot characterise as a 'terrorist sympathiser'
Wrong. It depends on who they pick as Cameron's replacement and when. If it is a LEAVER then the trouble goes away.
You really ought to go on the stage as a comedian.
It's terrible wishful thinking: "I support a side, and everything will be fine if my side is in power, whatever happens."
For one thing, much will depend on the size of any win. You will probably be right if leave win by more than (say) 10%. Anything less than a 5-10% win and the most important thing would be to pick someone - leaver or remainer - who could bring the two sides together. It would be a moderate leaver, not a loonhard leaver. Look at someone who supports leave but has been fairly quiet but firm on the topic.
If remain win, it would be impossible for a hard leaver to run the party - they'd be too divisive.
And as Major found out, the hard leavers in the Conservative Party care more about disrupting the party than winning elections. That is why I shall continue to call them loons, in the same way I'd say the same about pro-Euro remainers.
It'll be a moderate leaver or Remainian regardless. There just aren't that many hardcore on either side.
I wouldn't call a pro-euro Remainian a loon, I'd call him sensible: the status quo where we hate them for trying to drag us into ever closer union and they resent us for resisting it isn't good for anyone.
Nice try but no cigar. You are wasting your time with me, being out of the EU is more important to our country's future than the short term benefit to either party.
The dive to the left or right is besides the point. You cant win in *only* in the middle either as the LDs have proved. Winning is about keeping your core onboard AND appealing to the middle. Blair did it from the left and Thatcher from the right.
Ah, I've now seen your edit.
"You are wasting your time with me, being out of the EU is more important to our country's future than the short term benefit to either party."
Then you are mad. Barking mad. Stupidly, hilariously, barking mad. Sorry, but there's no other way of putting it. Whatever powers the EU has taken off us, ten years of a Corbynite-sryle government would be far worse.
Take Trident. The EU is unlikely to interfere with Trident, especially as the French have their own deterrent. A Corbynite government would almost certainly not go ahead with the replacement boats. I'm pretty sure the nuclear deterrent is popular with the hard right.
Take railways. A Corbynite government would almost certainly muck about once more with a system that is (eventually) working well.
Take nationalisation. A Corbynite government would be more concerned with ownership structures than what works in each individual industry.
Goodness knows how a Corbynite would damage foreign policy. Would we move from 'hug a hoodie' to 'hug a terrorist' ?
Etcetera, etcetera. You will have government led by political dogma rather than reality. The idea that remaining in the EU would be worse that quickly is laughable.
As for your last paragraph: yes, a party needs to keep its core. But as the 2001 and 2005 elections show, the core of the Conservative vote is not to the hard right of the party. Just as the core of Labour's vote is not to the hard left.
Nice try but no cigar. You are wasting your time with me, being out of the EU is more important to our country's future than the short term benefit to either party.
The dive to the left or right is besides the point. You cant win in *only* in the middle either as the LDs have proved. Winning is about keeping your core onboard AND appealing to the middle. Blair did it from the left and Thatcher from the right.
Ah, I've now seen your edit.
"You are wasting your time with me, being out of the EU is more important to our country's future than the short term benefit to either party."
Then you are mad. Barking mad. Stupidly, hilariously, barking mad. Sorry, but there's no other way of putting it. Whatever powers the EU has taken off us, ten years of a Corbynite-sryle government would be far worse.
Aha, so your argument is go along with everything the party wants, no matter how stupid because the alternative is Corbyn, before that the alternative was Miliband, and all the Cameroons were saying the same thing about him, and before that I dare say about Kinnock. It's a slightly more grownup version of "be good or the boogieman will get you" and just about as convincing.
As for your last paragraph: yes, a party needs to keep its core. But as the 2001 and 2005 elections show, the core of the Conservative vote is not to the hard right of the party. Just as the core of Labour's vote is not to the hard left.
Christ on a bike, there is about four billion political miles between where Cameron is now and the "hard right", he is barely "right" at all, someone could be as right wing as Hannan as still not be close to being as leftwing as Corbyn and McDonnell. Even John Redwood is only about halfway between Cameron and the "hard right".
On topic, The Tories are screwed if Labour ditch Corbyn for Dan Jarvis or anyone vaguely electable, basically anyone the Tories cannot characterise as a 'terrorist sympathiser'
Wrong. It depends on who they pick as Cameron's replacement and when. If it is a LEAVER then the trouble goes away.
You really ought to go on the stage as a comedian.
It's terrible wishful thinking: "I support a side, and everything will be fine if my side is in power, whatever happens."
For one thing, much will depend on the size of any win. You will probably be right if leave win by more than (say) 10%. Anything less than a 5-10% win and the most important thing would be to pick someone - leaver or remainer - who could bring the two sides together. It would be a moderate leaver, not a loonhard leaver. Look at someone who supports leave but has been fairly quiet but firm on the topic.
If remain win, it would be impossible for a hard leaver to run the party - they'd be too divisive.
And as Major found out, the hard leavers in the Conservative Party care more about disrupting the party than winning elections. That is why I shall continue to call them loons, in the same way I'd say the same about pro-Euro remainers.
It'll be a moderate leaver or Remainian regardless. There just aren't that many hardcore on either side.
I wouldn't call a pro-euro Remainian a loon, I'd call him sensible: the status quo where we hate them for trying to drag us into ever closer union and they resent us for resisting it isn't good for anyone.
That last paragraph is kind-of my position, and why I will probably be voting leave. But there are undoubtedly loony elements amongst the Conservative leavers, just as there are amongst the Conservative remainers (e.g. the few remaining pro-Euro people).
On topic, The Tories are screwed if Labour ditch Corbyn for Dan Jarvis or anyone vaguely electable, basically anyone the Tories cannot characterise as a 'terrorist sympathiser'
Wrong. It depends on who they pick as Cameron's replacement and when. If it is a LEAVER then the trouble goes away.
the hard leavers in the Conservative Party care more about disrupting the party than winning elections. That is why I shall continue to call them loons
If that covers the insane 'doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results' I'm with you. They really should just grow up!
Nice try but no cigar. You are wasting your time with me, being out of the EU is more important to our country's future than the short term benefit to either party.
The dive to the left or right is besides the point. You cant win in *only* in the middle either as the LDs have proved. Winning is about keeping your core onboard AND appealing to the middle. Blair did it from the left and Thatcher from the right.
Ah, I've now seen your edit.
"You are wasting your time with me, being out of the EU is more important to our country's future than the short term benefit to either party."
Then you are mad. Barking mad. Stupidly, hilariously, barking mad. Sorry, but there's no other way of putting it. Whatever powers the EU has taken off us, ten years of a Corbynite-sryle government would be far worse.
Aha, so your argument is go along with everything the party wants, no matter how stupid because the alternative is Corbyn, before that the alternative was Miliband, and all the Cameroons were saying the same thing about him, and before that I dare say about Kinnock. It's a slightly more grownup version of "be good or the boogieman will get you" and just about as convincing.
No, that isn't my argument. Disagree with the party, but don't actively go out to cause it harm. There are people - even on here - who call themselves Conservatives and are willing to damage Cameron and even the party just to get the result they want in the referendum. It's loony short-termism.
Your argument is also odd as many leavers are painting the EU as the boogieman.
And Corbyn is far more dangerous than Miliband ever would have been. Miliband was out of his depth and clueless. Corbyn is out of his depth and actively malign to the interests of the nation.
Christ on a bike, there is about four billion political miles between where Cameron is now and the "hard right", he is barely "right" at all, someone could be as right wing as Hannan as still not be close to being as leftwing as Corbyn and McDonnell. Even John Redwood is only about halfway between Cameron and the "hard right".
Methinks you are seeing things through loony-tinted glasses.
Elections won since Thatcher from the hard right: none. Elections won since Thatcher from the soft right: three. Elections win since Thatcher from the soft left: three. Elections won since Thatcher from the hard left: none.
You could argue that Thatcher was soft right as well; it was just her opponents were further to the left by comparison.
Nice try but no cigar. You are wasting your time with me, being out of the EU is more important to our country's future than the short term benefit to either party.
The dive to the left or right is besides the point. You cant win in *only* in the middle either as the LDs have proved. Winning is about keeping your core onboard AND appealing to the middle. Blair did it from the left and Thatcher from the right.
Ah, I've now seen your edit.
"You are wasting your time with me, being out of the EU is more important to our country's future than the short term benefit to either party."
Then you are mad. Barking mad. Stupidly, hilariously, barking mad. Sorry, but there's no other way of putting it. Whatever powers the EU has taken off us, ten years of a Corbynite-sryle government would be far worse.
Aha, so your argument is go along with everything the party wants, no matter how stupid because the alternative is Corbyn, before that the alternative was Miliband, and all the Cameroons were saying the same thing about him, and before that I dare say about Kinnock. It's a slightly more grownup version of "be good or the boogieman will get you" and just about as convincing.
No, that isn't my argument. Disagree with the party, but don't actively go out to cause it harm. There are people - even on here - who call themselves Conservatives and are willing to damage Cameron and even the party just to get the result they want in the referendum. It's loony short-termism.
I agree with damaging the party being stupid.
I have no interest in Cameron's tax affairs, that's a leftie circlejerk, but if he puts his neck on the line over the EURef he is fair game on anything he says, especially the lies. If leave win his reputation will be dirt anyway, what is said and done by anyone will be irrelevant, more to the point the voters won't even remember him by 2020.
On topic, The Tories are screwed if Labour ditch Corbyn for Dan Jarvis or anyone vaguely electable, basically anyone the Tories cannot characterise as a 'terrorist sympathiser'
Wrong. It depends on who they pick as Cameron's replacement and when. If it is a LEAVER then the trouble goes away.
You really ought to go on the stage as a comedian.
It's terrible wishful thinking: "I support a side, and everything will be fine if my side is in power, whatever happens."
For one thing, much will depend on the size of any win. You will probably be right if leave win by more than (say) 10%. Anything less than a 5-10% win and the most important thing would be to pick someone - leaver or remainer - who could bring the two sides together. It would be a moderate leaver, not a loonhard leaver. Look at someone who supports leave but has been fairly quiet but firm on the topic.
If remain win, it would be impossible for a hard leaver to run the party - they'd be too divisive.
And as Major found out, the hard leavers in the Conservative Party care more about disrupting the party than winning elections. That is why I shall continue to call them loons, in the same way I'd say the same about pro-Euro remainers.
It'll be a moderate leaver or Remainian regardless. There just aren't that many hardcore on either side.
I wouldn't call a pro-euro Remainian a loon, I'd call him sensible: the status quo where we hate them for trying to drag us into ever closer union and they resent us for resisting it isn't good for anyone.
That last paragraph is kind-of my position, and why I will probably be voting leave. But there are undoubtedly loony elements amongst the Conservative leavers, just as there are amongst the Conservative remainers (e.g. the few remaining pro-Euro people).
The conservative MPs that are Remainers aren't really pro EU they're pro their own career, or at least were. They're now realising that putting their individual prospects ahead of their principles was a mistake. They joined a sinking ship.
Christ on a bike, there is about four billion political miles between where Cameron is now and the "hard right", he is barely "right" at all, someone could be as right wing as Hannan as still not be close to being as leftwing as Corbyn and McDonnell. Even John Redwood is only about halfway between Cameron and the "hard right".
Methinks you are seeing things through loony-tinted glasses.
Elections won since Thatcher from the hard right: none. Elections won since Thatcher from the soft right: three. Elections win since Thatcher from the soft left: three. Elections won since Thatcher from the hard left: none.
You could argue that Thatcher was soft right as well; it was just her opponents were further to the left by comparison.
You are doing a good line in insults this morning, and it makes your arguments sooo much more convincing.
"I am not that interested in what JJ wrote" I said to myself, "but now that he is insulting me, I better go and have a closer look".
Thatcher wasn't hard right, Redwood isn't hard right, Hannan isn't hard right, the damn BNP is hard right, your sights need recalibrating.
Nice try but no cigar. You are wasting your time with me, being out of the EU is more important to our country's future than the short term benefit to either party.
The dive to the left or right is besides the point. You cant win in *only* in the middle either as the LDs have proved. Winning is about keeping your core onboard AND appealing to the middle. Blair did it from the left and Thatcher from the right.
Ah, I've now seen your edit.
"You are wasting your time with me, being out of the EU is more important to our country's future than the short term benefit to either party."
Then you are mad. Barking mad. Stupidly, hilariously, barking mad. Sorry, but there's no other way of putting it. Whatever powers the EU has taken off us, ten years of a Corbynite-sryle government would be far worse.
Aha, so your argument is go along with everything the party wants, no matter how stupid because the alternative is Corbyn, before that the alternative was Miliband, and all the Cameroons were saying the same thing about him, and before that I dare say about Kinnock. It's a slightly more grownup version of "be good or the boogieman will get you" and just about as convincing.
No, that isn't my argument. Disagree with the party, but don't actively go out to cause it harm. There are people - even on here - who call themselves Conservatives and are willing to damage Cameron and even the party just to get the result they want in the referendum. It's loony short-termism.
Your argument is also odd as many leavers are painting the EU as the boogieman.
And Corbyn is far more dangerous than Miliband ever would have been. Miliband was out of his depth and clueless. Corbyn is out of his depth and actively malign to the interests of the nation.
A leader who is out of his/her depth can listen and learn. Thatcher is the obvious example. JC needs a Whitelaw.
The test to apply to Peebie-Tories (or anyone else) who call him "actively malign to the interests of the nation" is to ask - do they think that of Attlee and the 1945 settlement?
I suspect that for mot of them the answer is "yes" - those who cannot learn from the past are condemned to repeat it, yet I suspect that for many Peebie-Tories the 1920s and 1930s are a fantastic Silver Age they would like to return.
Nice try but no cigar. You are wasting your time with me, being out of the EU is more important to our country's future than the short term benefit to either party.
The dive to the left or right is besides the point. You cant win in *only* in the middle either as the LDs have proved. Winning is about keeping your core onboard AND appealing to the middle. Blair did it from the left and Thatcher from the right.
Ah, I've now seen your edit.
"You are wasting your time with me, being out of the EU is more important to our country's future than the short term benefit to either party."
Then you are mad. Barking mad. Stupidly, hilariously, barking mad. Sorry, but there's no other way of putting it. Whatever powers the EU has taken off us, ten years of a Corbynite-sryle government would be far worse.
Aha, so your argument is go along with everything the party wants, no matter how stupid because the alternative is Corbyn, before that the alternative was Miliband, and all the Cameroons were saying the same thing about him, and before that I dare say about Kinnock. It's a slightly more grownup version of "be good or the boogieman will get you" and just about as convincing.
No, that isn't my argument. Disagree with the party, but don't actively go out to cause it harm. There are people - even on here - who call themselves Conservatives and are willing to damage Cameron and even the party just to get the result they want in the referendum. It's loony short-termism.
I agree with damaging the party being stupid.
I have no interest in Cameron's tax affairs, that's a leftie circlejerk, but if he puts his neck on the line over the EURef he is fair game on anything he says, especially the lies. If leave win his reputation will be dirt anyway, what is said and done by anyone will be irrelevant, more to the point the voters won't even remember him by 2020.
But you miss an important point. If he wins, then at least half the voters agree with him. His reputation will hardly be dirt amongst Conservatives, except amongst those who would prefer someone who admires Chavez and thinks that Venezuela is a massive success.
On topic, The Tories are screwed if Labour ditch Corbyn for Dan Jarvis or anyone vaguely electable, basically anyone the Tories cannot characterise as a 'terrorist sympathiser'
Wrong. It depends on who they pick as Cameron's replacement and when. If it is a LEAVER then the trouble goes away.
You really ought to go on the stage as a comedian.
It's terrible wishful thinking: "I support a side, and everything will be fine if my side is in power, whatever happens."
For one thing, much will depend on the size of any win. You will probably be right if leave win by more than (say) 10%. Anything less than a 5-10% win and the most important thing would be to pick someone - leaver or remainer - who could bring the two sides together. It would be a moderate leaver, not a loonhard leaver. Look at someone who supports leave but has been fairly quiet but firm on the topic.
If remain win, it would be impossible for a hard leaver to run the party - they'd be too divisive.
And as Major found out, the hard leavers in the Conservative Party care more about disrupting the party than winning elections. That is why I shall continue to call them loons, in the same way I'd say the same about pro-Euro remainers.
It'll be a moderate leaver or Remainian regardless. There just aren't that many hardcore on either side.
I wouldn't call a pro-euro Remainian a loon, I'd call him sensible: the status quo where we hate them for trying to drag us into ever closer union and they resent us for resisting it isn't good for anyone.
That last paragraph is kind-of my position, and why I will probably be voting leave. But there are undoubtedly loony elements amongst the Conservative leavers, just as there are amongst the Conservative remainers (e.g. the few remaining pro-Euro people).
The conservative MPs that are Remainers aren't really pro EU they're pro their own career, or at least were. They're now realising that putting their individual prospects ahead of their principles was a mistake. They joined a sinking ship.
If Leave win it's going to be interesting to see how many MPs and ministers will suddenly discover they were really fans of Leave all along, but had to support remain because Dave and George were leaning on them
Labours message to the voters..Go to work and earn money and we will tax you..give some of that money to your children or grandchildren and we will tax you again..Vote winner Labour... Vote for them once.. get taxed twice.
On topic, The Tories are screwed if Labour ditch Corbyn for Dan Jarvis or anyone vaguely electable, basically anyone the Tories cannot characterise as a 'terrorist sympathiser'
Wrong. It depends on who they pick as Cameron's replacement and when. If it is a LEAVER then the trouble goes away.
You really ought to go on the stage as a comedian.
It's terrible wishful thinking: "I support a side, and everything will be fine if my side is in power, whatever happens."
For one thing, much will depend on the size of any win. You will probably be right if leave win by more than (say) 10%. Anything less than a 5-10% win and the most important thing would be to pick someone - leaver or remainer - who could bring the two sides together. It would be a moderate leaver, not a loonhard leaver. Look at someone who supports leave but has been fairly quiet but firm on the topic.
If remain win, it would be impossible for a hard leaver to run the party - they'd be too divisive.
And as Major found out, the hard leavers in the Conservative Party care more about disrupting the party than winning elections. That is why I shall continue to call them loons, in the same way I'd say the same about pro-Euro remainers.
It'll be a moderate leaver or Remainian regardless. There just aren't that many hardcore on either side.
I wouldn't call a pro-euro Remainian a loon, I'd call him sensible: the status quo where we hate them for trying to drag us into ever closer union and they resent us for resisting it isn't good for anyone.
That last paragraph is kind-of my position, and why I will probably be voting leave. But there are undoubtedly loony elements amongst the Conservative leavers, just as there are amongst the Conservative remainers (e.g. the few remaining pro-Euro people).
The conservative MPs that are Remainers aren't really pro EU they're pro their own career, or at least were. They're now realising that putting their individual prospects ahead of their principles was a mistake. They joined a sinking ship.
If Leave win it's going to be interesting to see how many MPs and ministers will suddenly discover they were really fans of Leave all along, but had to support remain because Dave and George were leaning on them
Quite a few of them don't really believe in anything so the mental gymnastics won't be too hard for them.
Nice try but no cigar. You are wasting your time with me, being out of the EU is more important to our country's future than the short term benefit to either party.
The dive to the left or right is besides the point. You cant win in *only* in the middle either as the LDs have proved. Winning is about keeping your core onboard AND appealing to the middle. Blair did it from the left and Thatcher from the right.
Ah, I've now seen your edit.
"You are wasting your time with me, being out of the EU is more important to our country's future than the short term benefit to either party."
Then you are mad. Barking mad. Stupidly, hilariously, barking mad. Sorry, but there's no other way of putting it. Whatever powers the EU has taken off us, ten years of a Corbynite-sryle government would be far worse.
Aha, so your argument is go along with everything the party wants, no matter how stupid because the alternative is Corbyn, before that the alternative was Miliband, and all the Cameroons were saying the same thing about him, and before that I dare say about Kinnock. It's a slightly more grownup version of "be good or the boogieman will get you" and just about as convincing.
No, that isn't my argument. Disagree with the party, but don't actively go out to cause it harm. There are people - even on here - who call themselves Conservatives and are willing to damage Cameron and even the party just to get the result they want in the referendum. It's loony short-termism.
I agree with damaging the party being stupid.
I have no interest in Cameron's tax affairs, that's a leftie circlejerk, but if he puts his neck on the line over the EURef he is fair game on anything he says, especially the lies. If leave win his reputation will be dirt anyway, what is said and done by anyone will be irrelevant, more to the point the voters won't even remember him by 2020.
But you miss an important point. If he wins, then at least half the voters agree with him. His reputation will hardly be dirt amongst Conservatives, except amongst those who would prefer someone who admires Chavez and thinks that Venezuela is a massive success.
Maybe. The fact that so much Project Terror is being required to move the vote suggests that were it not there it would be a comfortable leave, those people browbeaten into a remain vote are going to notice they have been sold a pup quite rapidly, especially when all the euro-nonsense that has been held back for the last year is released.
Labours message to the voters..Go to work and earn money and we will tax you..give some of that money to your children or grandchildren and we will tax you again..Vote winner Labour... Vote for them once.. get taxed twice.
Especially when McDermott points out that the Tories are taxing us all twice already. Think about it.
Well I warned a few hours ago that this could backfire on Labour.
If the narrative now changes to Labour saying they'll tax parents giving money to their children then that will be an own goal on a massive scale.
Just imagine parents / grandparents thinking about helping their children get the money for a deposit to buy their first home and wondering if Corbyn is going to tax it.
Electoral suicide.
The 7 year rule should be scrapped. It benefits only the wealthy at the expense of 're rest' of us. Is there anything less equitable than the requirements on inheritance that a gift giver needs to live 7 years and the gift can't effect the standard of living ? An ordinary man does say in London at the peak of this current bubble - and leaves his £2 mn house which he bought ages ago but little else. Prices then drop 50% before it can be sold as the bottom falls out the market due to PM Corbyn or w/o. Utterly utterly pernicious. Je suis Polly - scrap it all.
Christ on a bike, there is about four billion political miles between where Cameron is now and the "hard right", he is barely "right" at all, someone could be as right wing as Hannan as still not be close to being as leftwing as Corbyn and McDonnell. Even John Redwood is only about halfway between Cameron and the "hard right".
Methinks you are seeing things through loony-tinted glasses.
Elections won since Thatcher from the hard right: none. Elections won since Thatcher from the soft right: three. Elections win since Thatcher from the soft left: three. Elections won since Thatcher from the hard left: none.
You could argue that Thatcher was soft right as well; it was just her opponents were further to the left by comparison.
You are doing a good line in insults this morning, and it makes your arguments sooo much more convincing.
"I am not that interested in what JJ wrote" I said to myself, "but now that he is insulting me, I better go and have a closer look".
Thatcher wasn't hard right, Redwood isn't hard right, Hannan isn't hard right, the damn BNP is hard right, your sights need recalibrating.
The BNP is pro benefits. Thatcher was more capitalist than them
On topic, The Tories are screwed if Labour ditch Corbyn for Dan Jarvis or anyone vaguely electable, basically anyone the Tories cannot characterise as a 'terrorist sympathiser'
Wrong. It depends on who they pick as Cameron's replacement and when. If it is a LEAVER then the trouble goes away.
You really ought to go on the stage as a comedian.
It's terrible wishful thinking: "I support a side, and everything will be fine if my side is in power, whatever happens."
For one thing, much will depend on the size of any win. You will probably be right if leave win by more than (say) 10%. Anything less than a 5-10% win and the most important thing would be to pick someone - leaver or remainer - who could bring the two sides together. It would be a moderate leaver, not a loonhard leaver. Look at someone who supports leave but has been fairly quiet but firm on the topic.
If remain win, it would be impossible for a hard leaver to run the party - they'd be too divisive.
And as Major found out, the hard leavers in the Conservative Party care more about disrupting the party than winning elections. That is why I shall continue to call them loons, in the same way I'd say the same about pro-Euro remainers.
It'll be a moderate leaver or Remainian regardless. There just aren't that many hardcore on either side.
I wouldn't call a pro-euro Remainian a loon, I'd call him sensible: the status quo where we hate them for trying to drag us into ever closer union and they resent us for resisting it isn't good for anyone.
That last paragraph is kind-of my position, and why I will probably be voting leave. But there are undoubtedly loony elements amongst the Conservative leavers, just as there are amongst the Conservative remainers (e.g. the few remaining pro-Euro people).
The conservative MPs that are Remainers aren't really pro EU they're pro their own career, or at least were. They're now realising that putting their individual prospects ahead of their principles was a mistake. They joined a sinking ship.
Likewise, I could say that conservative MPs that are leavers aren't really anti-EU they're pro their own career. E.g. Boris.
But that'd just be a stupid thing to say as the reality and motivations are much more complex than that.
Well I warned a few hours ago that this could backfire on Labour.
If the narrative now changes to Labour saying they'll tax parents giving money to their children then that will be an own goal on a massive scale.
Just imagine parents / grandparents thinking about helping their children get the money for a deposit to buy their first home and wondering if Corbyn is going to tax it.
Electoral suicide.
The 7 year rule should be scrapped. It benefits only the wealthy at the expense of 're rest' of us. Is there anything less equitable than the requirements on inheritance that a gift giver needs to live 7 years and the gift can't effect the standard of living ? An ordinary man does say in London at the peak of this current bubble - and leaves his £2 mn house which he bought ages ago but little else. Prices then drop 50% before it can be sold as the bottom falls out the market due to PM Corbyn or w/o. Utterly utterly pernicious. Je suis Polly - scrap it all.
Anyone who thinks they "own" the market price of their home is not so much ordinary as stupid. What they own is the usufruct - the rest is a gamble.
Well I warned a few hours ago that this could backfire on Labour.
If the narrative now changes to Labour saying they'll tax parents giving money to their children then that will be an own goal on a massive scale.
Just imagine parents / grandparents thinking about helping their children get the money for a deposit to buy their first home and wondering if Corbyn is going to tax it.
Electoral suicide.
The 7 year rule should be scrapped. It benefits only the wealthy at the expense of 're rest' of us. Is there anything less equitable than the requirements on inheritance that a gift giver needs to live 7 years and the gift can't effect the standard of living ? An ordinary man does say in London at the peak of this current bubble - and leaves his £2 mn house which he bought ages ago but little else. Prices then drop 50% before it can be sold as the bottom falls out the market due to PM Corbyn or w/o. Utterly utterly pernicious. Je suis Polly - scrap it all.
If you follow the Polly Toynbee line of taxing bequests and gifts as income, you then wander into taxing birthday and Christmas presents, engagement rings, wedding presents, support by parents for house purchases and support by parents for children in financial difficulties. I might be wrong but I'm doubtful that's going to prove particularly popular.
Christ on a bike, there is about four billion political miles between where Cameron is now and the "hard right", he is barely "right" at all, someone could be as right wing as Hannan as still not be close to being as leftwing as Corbyn and McDonnell. Even John Redwood is only about halfway between Cameron and the "hard right".
Elections won since ....
Views from the leftie Conservatives... "The Conservative party is too right-wing to win a general election, " Ken Clarke 3 weeks before GE2015
Well I warned a few hours ago that this could backfire on Labour.
If the narrative now changes to Labour saying they'll tax parents giving money to their children then that will be an own goal on a massive scale.
Just imagine parents / grandparents thinking about helping their children get the money for a deposit to buy their first home and wondering if Corbyn is going to tax it.
Electoral suicide.
The 7 year rule should be scrapped. It benefits only the wealthy at the expense of 're rest' of us. Is there anything less equitable than the requirements on inheritance that a gift giver needs to live 7 years and the gift can't effect the standard of living ? An ordinary man does say in London at the peak of this current bubble - and leaves his £2 mn house which he bought ages ago but little else. Prices then drop 50% before it can be sold as the bottom falls out the market due to PM Corbyn or w/o. Utterly utterly pernicious. Je suis Polly - scrap it all.
If you follow the Polly Toynbee line of taxing bequests and gifts as income, you then wander into taxing birthday and Christmas presents, engagement rings, wedding presents, support by parents for house purchases and support by parents for children in financial difficulties. I might be wrong but I'm doubtful that's going to prove particularly popular.
I thought she wanted to just scrap IHT ! Lol no I don't want taxed income taxes again.
Well I warned a few hours ago that this could backfire on Labour.
If the narrative now changes to Labour saying they'll tax parents giving money to their children then that will be an own goal on a massive scale.
Just imagine parents / grandparents thinking about helping their children get the money for a deposit to buy their first home and wondering if Corbyn is going to tax it.
Electoral suicide.
The 7 year rule should be scrapped. It benefits only the wealthy at the expense of 're rest' of us. Is there anything less equitable than the requirements on inheritance that a gift giver needs to live 7 years and the gift can't effect the standard of living ? An ordinary man does say in London at the peak of this current bubble - and leaves his £2 mn house which he bought ages ago but little else. Prices then drop 50% before it can be sold as the bottom falls out the market due to PM Corbyn or w/o. Utterly utterly pernicious. Je suis Polly - scrap it all.
If you follow the Polly Toynbee line of taxing bequests and gifts as income, you then wander into taxing birthday and Christmas presents, engagement rings, wedding presents, support by parents for house purchases and support by parents for children in financial difficulties. I might be wrong but I'm doubtful that's going to prove particularly popular.
You may just have noticed why journalists aren't politicians
The only logic I can see in taxing gifts from parents as taxable in the hands of the recipients is that it will prove that Cameron was a tax avoider. Quite a high price to pay for the rest of us.
My daughter came to tea last night and drank a fair bit of my wine. Will she need to declare this?
Well I warned a few hours ago that this could backfire on Labour.
If the narrative now changes to Labour saying they'll tax parents giving money to their children then that will be an own goal on a massive scale.
Just imagine parents / grandparents thinking about helping their children get the money for a deposit to buy their first home and wondering if Corbyn is going to tax it.
Electoral suicide.
The 7 year rule should be scrapped. It benefits only the wealthy at the expense of 're rest' of us. Is there anything less equitable than the requirements on inheritance that a gift giver needs to live 7 years and the gift can't effect the standard of living ? An ordinary man does say in London at the peak of this current bubble - and leaves his £2 mn house which he bought ages ago but little else. Prices then drop 50% before it can be sold as the bottom falls out the market due to PM Corbyn or w/o. Utterly utterly pernicious. Je suis Polly - scrap it all.
Anyone who thinks they "own" the market price of their home is not so much ordinary as stupid. What they own is the usufruct - the rest is a gamble.
Tax on houses evaluated at time of death - so not good to die at the height of a boom
Well I warned a few hours ago that this could backfire on Labour.
If the narrative now changes to Labour saying they'll tax parents giving money to their children then that will be an own goal on a massive scale.
Just imagine parents / grandparents thinking about helping their children get the money for a deposit to buy their first home and wondering if Corbyn is going to tax it.
Electoral suicide.
The 7 year rule should be scrapped. It benefits only the wealthy at the expense of 're rest' of us. Is there anything less equitable than the requirements on inheritance that a gift giver needs to live 7 years and the gift can't effect the standard of living ? An ordinary man does say in London at the peak of this current bubble - and leaves his £2 mn house which he bought ages ago but little else. Prices then drop 50% before it can be sold as the bottom falls out the market due to PM Corbyn or w/o. Utterly utterly pernicious. Je suis Polly - scrap it all.
If you follow the Polly Toynbee line of taxing bequests and gifts as income, you then wander into taxing birthday and Christmas presents, engagement rings, wedding presents, support by parents for house purchases and support by parents for children in financial difficulties. I might be wrong but I'm doubtful that's going to prove particularly popular.
I thought she wanted to just scrap IHT ! Lol no I don't want taxed income taxes again.
Nice try but no cigar. You are wasting your time with me, being out of the EU is more important to our country's future than the short term benefit to either party.
The dive to the left or right is besides the point. You cant win in *only* in the middle either as the LDs have proved. Winning is about keeping your core onboard AND appealing to the middle. Blair did it from the left and Thatcher from the right.
Ah, I've now seen your edit.
"You are wasting your time with me, being out of the EU is more important to our country's future than the short term benefit to either party."
Then you are mad. Barking mad. Stupidly, hilariously, barking mad. Sorry, but there's no other way of putting it. Whatever powers the EU has taken off us, ten years of a Corbynite-sryle government would be far worse.
Aha, so your argument is go along with everything the party wants, no matter how stupid because the alternative is Corbyn, before that the alternative was Miliband, and all the Cameroons were saying the same thing about him, and before that I dare say about Kinnock. It's a slightly more grownup version of "be good or the boogieman will get you" and just about as convincing.
No, that isn't my argument. Disagree with the party, but don't actively go out to cause it harm. There are people - even on here - who call themselves Conservatives and are willing to damage Cameron and even the party just to get the result they want in the referendum. It's loony short-termism.
Your argument is also odd as many leavers are painting the EU as the boogieman.
And Corbyn is far more dangerous than Miliband ever would have been. Miliband was out of his depth and clueless. Corbyn is out of his depth and actively malign to the interests of the nation.
There is another group of people - who are Conservatives - that worry about the direction the Cameron leadership has taken the party since February, and suggest that replacing at least part of this leadership might be in the long term interests of a Tory party.
Just as deposing Thatcher was in the long term party interest....
Nice try but no cigar. You are wasting your time with me, being out of the EU is more important to our country's future than the short term benefit to either party.
The dive to the left or right is besides the point. You cant win in *only* in the middle either as the LDs have proved. Winning is about keeping your core onboard AND appealing to the middle. Blair did it from the left and Thatcher from the right.
Ah, I've now seen your edit.
"You are wasting your time with me, being out of the EU is more important to our country's future than the short term benefit to either party."
Then you are mad. Barking mad. Stupidly, hilariously, barking mad. Sorry, but there's no other way of putting it. Whatever powers the EU has taken off us, ten years of a Corbynite-sryle government would be far worse.
Aha, so your argument is go along with everything the party wants, no matter how stupid because the alternative is Corbyn, before that the alternative was Miliband, and all the Cameroons were saying the same thing about him, and before that I dare say about Kinnock. It's a slightly more grownup version of "be good or the boogieman will get you" and just about as convincing.
No, that isn't my argument. Disagree with the party, but don't actively go out to cause it harm. There are people - even on here - who call themselves Conservatives and are willing to damage Cameron and even the party just to get the result they want in the referendum. It's loony short-termism.
Your argument is also odd as many leavers are painting the EU as the boogieman.
And Corbyn is far more dangerous than Miliband ever would have been. Miliband was out of his depth and clueless. Corbyn is out of his depth and actively malign to the interests of the nation.
A leader who is out of his/her depth can listen and learn. Thatcher is the obvious example. JC needs a Whitelaw.
You trash what was a good gag by Maggie, when (being the first female Prime Minister and still facing a barrage of misogyny) she lampooned the prevailing sentiment that every Prime Minister needs a Willie....
The Labour Party stubbornly sticks to this line, nearly forty years later.
Nice try but no cigar. You are wasting your time with me, being out of the EU is more important to our country's future than the short term benefit to either party.
The dive to the left or right is besides the point. You cant win in *only* in the middle either as the LDs have proved. Winning is about keeping your core onboard AND appealing to the middle. Blair did it from the left and Thatcher from the right.
Ah, I've now seen your edit.
"You are wasting your time with me, being out of the EU is more important to our country's future than the short term benefit to either party."
Then you are mad. Barking mad. Stupidly, hilariously, barking mad. Sorry, but there's no other way of putting it. Whatever powers the EU has taken off us, ten years of a Corbynite-sryle government would be far worse.
Aha, so your argument is go along with everything the party wants, no matter how stupid because the alternative is Corbyn, before that the alternative was Miliband, and all the Cameroons were saying the same thing about him, and before that I dare say about Kinnock. It's a slightly more grownup version of "be good or the boogieman will get you" and just about as convincing.
No, that isn't my argument. Disagree with the party, but don't actively go out to cause it harm. There are people - even on here - who call themselves Conservatives and are willing to damage Cameron and even the party just to get the result they want in the referendum. It's loony short-termism.
Your argument is also odd as many leavers are painting the EU as the boogieman.
And Corbyn is far more dangerous than Miliband ever would have been. Miliband was out of his depth and clueless. Corbyn is out of his depth and actively malign to the interests of the nation.
A leader who is out of his/her depth can listen and learn. Thatcher is the obvious example. JC needs a Whitelaw.
You trash what was a good gag by Maggie, when (being the first female Prime Minister and still facing a barrage of misogyny) she lampooned the prevailing sentiment that every Prime Minister needs a Willie....
The Labour Party stubbornly sticks to this line, nearly forty years later.
Bless you. I left the Labour Party more than 25 years ago. Its time has gone.
Well I warned a few hours ago that this could backfire on Labour.
If the narrative now changes to Labour saying they'll tax parents giving money to their children then that will be an own goal on a massive scale.
Just imagine parents / grandparents thinking about helping their children get the money for a deposit to buy their first home and wondering if Corbyn is going to tax it.
Electoral suicide.
The 7 year rule should be scrapped. It benefits only the wealthy at the expense of 're rest' of us. Is there anything less equitable than the requirements on inheritance that a gift giver needs to live 7 years and the gift can't effect the standard of living ? An ordinary man does say in London at the peak of this current bubble - and leaves his £2 mn house which he bought ages ago but little else. Prices then drop 50% before it can be sold as the bottom falls out the market due to PM Corbyn or w/o. Utterly utterly pernicious. Je suis Polly - scrap it all.
If you follow the Polly Toynbee line of taxing bequests and gifts as income, you then wander into taxing birthday and Christmas presents, engagement rings, wedding presents, support by parents for house purchases and support by parents for children in financial difficulties. I might be wrong but I'm doubtful that's going to prove particularly popular.
I thought she wanted to just scrap IHT ! Lol no I don't want taxed income taxes again.
At a stroke all the wheezes, cheats and exemptions would be swept away. At a stroke, there would be no point in these secretive trusts.
follows from taxing all income the same. Isn't the whole point of secretive trusts that they are not seen as income, or preferably connected to the principal in any way whatsoever. It would certainly increase the popularity of company credit cards issued by low profile BVI shell corporations.
Well I warned a few hours ago that this could backfire on Labour.
If the narrative now changes to Labour saying they'll tax parents giving money to their children then that will be an own goal on a massive scale.
Just imagine parents / grandparents thinking about helping their children get the money for a deposit to buy their first home and wondering if Corbyn is going to tax it.
Electoral suicide.
The 7 year rule should be scrapped. It benefits only the wealthy at the expense of 're rest' of us. Is there anything less equitable than the requirements on inheritance that a gift giver needs to live 7 years and the gift can't effect the standard of living ? An ordinary man does say in London at the peak of this current bubble - and leaves his £2 mn house which he bought ages ago but little else. Prices then drop 50% before it can be sold as the bottom falls out the market due to PM Corbyn or w/o. Utterly utterly pernicious. Je suis Polly - scrap it all.
If you follow the Polly Toynbee line of taxing bequests and gifts as income, you then wander into taxing birthday and Christmas presents, engagement rings, wedding presents, support by parents for house purchases and support by parents for children in financial difficulties. I might be wrong but I'm doubtful that's going to prove particularly popular.
I thought she wanted to just scrap IHT ! Lol no I don't want taxed income taxes again.
On topic, The Tories are screwed if Labour ditch Corbyn for Dan Jarvis or anyone vaguely electable, basically anyone the Tories cannot characterise as a 'terrorist sympathiser'
Wrong. It depends on who they pick as Cameron's replacement and when. If it is a LEAVER then the trouble goes away.
You really ought to go on the stage as a comedian.
It's terrible wishful thinking: "I support a side, and everything will be fine if my side is in power, whatever happens."
For one thing, much will depend on the size of any win. You will probably be right if leave win by more than (say) 10%. Anything less than a 5-10% win and the most important thing would be to pick someone - leaver or remainer - who could bring the two sides together. It would be a moderate leaver, not a loonhard leaver. Look at someone who supports leave but has been fairly quiet but firm on the topic.
If remain win, it would be impossible for a hard leaver to run the party - they'd be too divisive.
And as Major found out, the hard leavers in the Conservative Party care more about disrupting the party than winning elections. That is why I shall continue to call them loons, in the same way I'd say the same about pro-Euro remainers.
It'll be a moderate leaver or Remainian regardless. There just aren't that many hardcore on either side.
I wouldn't call a pro-euro Remainian a loon, I'd call him sensible: the status quo where we hate them for trying to drag us into ever closer union and they resent us for resisting it isn't good for anyone.
That last paragraph is kind-of my position, and why I will probably be voting leave. But there are undoubtedly loony elements amongst the Conservative leavers, just as there are amongst the Conservative remainers (e.g. the few remaining pro-Euro people).
The conservative MPs that are Remainers aren't really pro EU they're pro their own career, or at least were. They're now realising that putting their individual prospects ahead of their principles was a mistake. They joined a sinking ship.
Wishful thinking. Some are like that, but perhaps many of them are genuine. It is far too complacent of leave, as well as potentially insulting, to presume their opponents don't really disagree with them.
Christ on a bike, there is about four billion political miles between where Cameron is now and the "hard right", he is barely "right" at all, someone could be as right wing as Hannan as still not be close to being as leftwing as Corbyn and McDonnell. Even John Redwood is only about halfway between Cameron and the "hard right".
Methinks you are seeing things through loony-tinted glasses.
Elections won since Thatcher from the hard right: none. Elections won since Thatcher from the soft right: three. Elections win since Thatcher from the soft left: three. Elections won since Thatcher from the hard left: none.
You could argue that Thatcher was soft right as well; it was just her opponents were further to the left by comparison.
You are doing a good line in insults this morning, and it makes your arguments sooo much more convincing.
"I am not that interested in what JJ wrote" I said to myself, "but now that he is insulting me, I better go and have a closer look".
Thatcher wasn't hard right, Redwood isn't hard right, Hannan isn't hard right, the damn BNP is hard right, your sights need recalibrating.
I'm not saying that. Firstly, views tend to be more complex than pure left and right. For instance, I'm probably socially slightly left of centre, whilst I'm economically right of centre. Secondly, comparing right and left, and especially centerism, over different periods can be very difficult.
As for insults: perhaps the more strident leavers should learn that lesson as well.
On topic, The Tories are screwed if Labour ditch Corbyn for Dan Jarvis or anyone vaguely electable, basically anyone the Tories cannot characterise as a 'terrorist sympathiser'
Wrong. It depends on who they pick as Cameron's replacement and when. If it is a LEAVER then the trouble goes away.
You really ought to go on the stage as a comedian.
It's terrible wishful thinking: "I support a side, and everything will be fine if my side is in power, whatever happens."
For one thing, much will depend on the size of any win. You will probably be right if leave win by more than (say) 10%. Anything less than a 5-10% win and the most important thing would be to pick someone - leaver or remainer - who could bring the two sides together. It would be a moderate leaver, not a loonhard leaver. Look at someone who supports leave but has been fairly quiet but firm on the topic.
If remain win, it would be impossible for a hard leaver to run the party - they'd be too divisive.
And as Major found out, the hard leavers in the Conservative Party care more about disrupting the party than winning elections. That is why I shall continue to call them loons, in the same way I'd say the same about pro-Euro remainers.
It'll be a moderate leaver or Remainian regardless. There just aren't that many hardcore on either side.
I wouldn't call a pro-euro Remainian a loon, I'd call him sensible: the status quo where we hate them for trying to drag us into ever closer union and they resent us for resisting it isn't good for anyone.
That last paragraph is kind-of my position, and why I will probably be voting leave. But there are undoubtedly loony elements amongst the Conservative leavers, just as there are amongst the Conservative remainers (e.g. the few remaining pro-Euro people).
The conservative MPs that are Remainers aren't really pro EU they're pro their own career, or at least were. They're now realising that putting their individual prospects ahead of their principles was a mistake. They joined a sinking ship.
Wishful thinking. Some are like that, but perhaps many of them are genuine. It is far too complacent of leave, as well as potentially insulting, to presume their opponents don't really disagree with them.
We will find out in a couple of months. If leave win, the unprincipled careerists will suddenly discover they were really leavers but had been browbeated into supporting remain by the PM. Those that actually believe in remain will stay put.
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
"It would be disingenuous to suggest, and dangerous on the part of those who advise on elaborate tax-avoidance schemes to assume, that Ramsay's case did not mark a significant change in the approach adopted by this House in its judicial role to a pre-ordained series of transaction (whether or not they include the achievement of a legitimate commercial end) into which there are inserted steps that have no commercial purpose apart from the avoidance of a liability to tax that, in the absence of those particular steps, would have been payable." Lord Diplock 1982
Christ on a bike, there is about four billion political miles between where Cameron is now and the "hard right", he is barely "right" at all, someone could be as right wing as Hannan as still not be close to being as leftwing as Corbyn and McDonnell. Even John Redwood is only about halfway between Cameron and the "hard right".
Elections won since ....
Views from the leftie Conservatives... "The Conservative party is too right-wing to win a general election, " Ken Clarke 3 weeks before GE2015
Many Conservatives were saying that the Conservatives would not win the election, yet alone get a majority. It was a common theme, even on such a knowledgeable forum as this. Most probably projected their own prejudices as to why they would lose.
Nice try but no cigar. You are wasting your time with me, being out of the EU is more important to our country's future than the short term benefit to either party.
The dive to the left or right is besides the point. You cant win in *only* in the middle either as the LDs have proved. Winning is about keeping your core onboard AND appealing to the middle. Blair did it from the left and Thatcher from the right.
Ah, I've now seen your edit.
"You are wasting your time with me, being out of the EU is more important to our country's future than the short term benefit to either party."
Then you are mad. Barking mad. Stupidly, hilariously, barking mad. Sorry, but there's no other way of putting it. Whatever powers the EU has taken off us, ten years of a Corbynite-sryle government would be far worse.
Aha, so your argument is go along with everything the party wants, no matter how stupid because the alternative is Corbyn, before that the alternative was Miliband, and all the Cameroons were saying the same thing about him, and before that I dare say about Kinnock. It's a slightly more grownup version of "be good or the boogieman will get you" and just about as convincing.
No, that isn't my argument. Disagree with the party, but don't actively go out to cause it harm. There are people - even on here - who call themselves Conservatives and are willing to damage Cameron and even the party just to get the result they want in the referendum. It's loony short-termism.
Your argument is also odd as many leavers are painting the EU as the boogieman.
And Corbyn is far more dangerous than Miliband ever would have been. Miliband was out of his depth and clueless. Corbyn is out of his depth and actively malign to the interests of the nation.
There is another group of people - who are Conservatives - that worry about the direction the Cameron leadership has taken the party since February, and suggest that replacing at least part of this leadership might be in the long term interests of a Tory party.
Just as deposing Thatcher was in the long term party interest....
What's changed since February, aside from Cameron coming out for remain?
And the last line is irrelevant as Cameron's said he's going anyway.
Whoever takes over the party will want the party to be in as strong a position as possible. They should not want to take over a party at war with itself. Attempts to depose Cameron will cause such a war.
The trouble with the double taxation point is that much of today's bequests are from unearned house price inflation. So the money hasn't been already taxed.
Politically though, no voters will care about this technicality. I think IHT is a mess, with only middle-ranking actually paying it, which seems unfair. However, I think Labour have walked into a trap, even if the Tories didn't exactly plan this one.
Mr. Borough, if Labour want to hammer inheritance tax, then yes, I agree.
It'll put off aspirational sorts, and it'll put off those likely to pay it.
Miss Plato, an interesting map, although the varying geographical (constituency?) sizes make it a bit tricky to compare numbers easily. I'd guess the two campaigns are roughly even.
Well I warned a few hours ago that this could backfire on Labour.
If the narrative now changes to Labour saying they'll tax parents giving money to their children then that will be an own goal on a massive scale.
Just imagine parents / grandparents thinking about helping their children get the money for a deposit to buy their first home and wondering if Corbyn is going to tax it.
Electoral suicide.
Not at all, the people you are talking about largely don't vote Labour under any circumstances.
If pitched correctly it could be very popular.
I think you're both a bit ahead of yourselves - it's not a narrative, it's one person expressing an opinion. Anyone who's written a regular column is familiar with the challenge of finding something provocative to write every time.
That said, I think a lifetime gift tax would be reasonable enough, and would work a bit like the lifetime tax-free pension contribution thing (£1 million or whatever it is) - if total gifts and legacies to you added up to more than say £500,000 then you'd pay tax on them. You'd be asked to declare gifts worth more than say £1000, to get away from the trivial Christmas present stuff, and it would gradually add up if you were lucky enough to get a series of gifts and legacies. Most people would never be affected, as with the pension threshold.
Meanwhile, Cameron's come up with an idea to penalise companies that assist tax evasion.
Yes the Tory infighting is unnecessary and wholly self inflicted. Way to go Dave! He's made a fundamentally wrong call, one that those who do not understand national identity and self determination find incomprehensible.
Mr. Borough, if Labour want to hammer inheritance tax, then yes, I agree.
It'll put off aspirational sorts, and it'll put off those likely to pay it.
Miss Plato, an interesting map, although the varying geographical (constituency?) sizes make it a bit tricky to compare numbers easily. I'd guess the two campaigns are roughly even.
The map looks on the face of it that "Leave" are more active than "remain". Interestingly, "remain" is active in larger consts where "leave" should be stronger.
Yes the Tory infighting is unnecessary and wholly self inflicted. Way to go Dave! He's made a fundamentally wrong call, one that those who do not understand national identity and self determination find incomprehensible.
Tory voters and MPs are pretty evenly split, if he'd made the opposite call there'd still be trouble. It's his tactics in advancing his cause which have made things worse.
Mr. Borough, if Labour want to hammer inheritance tax, then yes, I agree.
It'll put off aspirational sorts, and it'll put off those likely to pay it.
Miss Plato, an interesting map, although the varying geographical (constituency?) sizes make it a bit tricky to compare numbers easily. I'd guess the two campaigns are roughly even.
The map looks on the face of it that "Leave" are more active than "remain". Interestingly, "remain" is active in larger consts where "leave" should be stronger.
Mr. Borough, if Labour want to hammer inheritance tax, then yes, I agree.
It'll put off aspirational sorts, and it'll put off those likely to pay it.
Miss Plato, an interesting map, although the varying geographical (constituency?) sizes make it a bit tricky to compare numbers easily. I'd guess the two campaigns are roughly even.
The map looks on the face of it that "Leave" are more active than "remain". Interestingly, "remain" is active in larger consts where "leave" should be stronger.
I've backed Wales to remain off the back of the map.
My daughter came to tea last night and drank a fair bit of my wine. Will she need to declare this?
Best check with her Named Person.....assuming it hasn't already been reported.....
I was standing with my elderly parents outside a council building yesterday when my dad spotted a sign: "Parents will be held responsible for their children."
He looked at mum and said: "Bu**er. I thought we'd got rid of that responsibility. Josias, behave!"
Yes the Tory infighting is unnecessary and wholly self inflicted. Way to go Dave! He's made a fundamentally wrong call, one that those who do not understand national identity and self determination find incomprehensible.
Tory voters and MPs are pretty evenly split, if he'd made the opposite call there'd still be trouble. It's his tactics in advancing his cause which have made things worse.
I am not convinced. They are pretty evenly split after a lot of arm twisting. If arms were being twisted the other way it might look very one sided.... and we would be treated to the unusual sight of Mr Nabavi supporting Leave
Apathy breaking out all over. Nothing at all in Leicester, not even a leaflet yet, though there is the govt one to look forward to.
I fully expect that the Govt. will be putting out leaflets in Leicester saying that in the event of a vote to Leave, Ranieri will have to be expelled from the UK....
My daughter came to tea last night and drank a fair bit of my wine. Will she need to declare this?
Best check with her Named Person.....assuming it hasn't already been reported.....
I was standing with my elderly parents outside a council building yesterday when my dad spotted a sign: "Parents will be held responsible for their children."
He looked at mum and said: "Bu**er. I thought we'd got rid of that responsibility. Josias, behave!"
Lol.
It is slightly sad that is has to be repeated in public. Its like suggesting that drivers will be held responsible for their cars. The idea that a not inconsiderable number of parents have that they are not responsible for their (minor) children is the cause of some of the more colourful parts of the UK living experience.
Nice try but no cigar. You are wasting your time with me, being out of the EU is more important to our country's future than the short term benefit to either party.
The dive to the left or right is besides the point. You cant win in *only* in the middle either as the LDs have proved. Winning is about keeping your core onboard AND appealing to the middle. Blair did it from the left and Thatcher from the right.
Ah, I've now seen your edit.
"You are wasting your time with me, being out of the EU is more important to our country's future than the short term benefit to either party."
Then you are mad. Barking mad. Stupidly, hilariously, barking mad. Sorry, but there's no other way of putting it. Whatever powers the EU has taken off us, ten years of a Corbynite-sryle government would be far worse.
Aha, so your argument is go along with everything the party wants, no matter how stupid because the alternative is Corbyn, before that the alternative was Miliband, and all the Cameroons were saying the same thing about him, and before that I dare say about Kinnock. It's a slightly more grownup version of "be good or the boogieman will get you" and just about as convincing.
No, that isn't my argument. Disagree with the party, but don't actively go out to cause it harm. There are people - even on here - who call themselves Conservatives and are willing to damage Cameron and even the party just to get the result they want in the referendum. It's loony short-termism.
Your argument is also odd as many leavers are painting the EU as the boogieman.
And Corbyn is far more dangerous than Miliband ever would have been. Miliband was out of his depth and clueless. Corbyn is out of his depth and actively malign to the interests of the nation.
A leader who is out of his/her depth can listen and learn. Thatcher is the obvious example. JC needs a Whitelaw.
You trash what was a good gag by Maggie, when (being the first female Prime Minister and still facing a barrage of misogyny) she lampooned the prevailing sentiment that every Prime Minister needs a Willie....
The Labour Party stubbornly sticks to this line, nearly forty years later.
Yeah, Thatch was definitely deploying her legendary wit in that case..
This passage echoes some of the discussions we've had here:
"The sums in Cameron’s tax returns are relatively small for a product of a wealthy family that sent children to Eton. But to most voters they shine light on a metaphorical foreign land, as well as the real ones that house offshore trusts. In that distant land, a London house earns hundreds of thousands of pounds in rent, mothers have a spare £200,000 in cash to hand over to sons and the language of finance is spoken so fluently that investing cash is as straightforward as buying a loaf of bread."
Comments
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/10/team-corbyn-sidelining-ken-livingstone-and-intervening-to-keep-h/
The LD only held Sheffield Hallam because of Tory support in case they needed Nick Clegg for a coalition again, and the Shetlands will be gone if Carmichael is their candidate there.
In which case - what exactly is the case for FPTP?
In any case Cameron needs to be popular enough to win the EU referendum to stay in his job, which requires 50+1 not 1/3rd of the vote, he is not that's why he needs Corbyn to save him.
Whether Corbyn will do the mistake to aid his enemy on the other side is still to be seen.
It is ironic that the man who made absolutely everything possible to destroy Corbyn early on now requires his help.
Goodnight, and lets see if the Newspaper Scandal develops further.
Willett Green Jackets at Augusta - http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/golf/36011542
Swings required to lose : -
John Pugh - 1.5% to Tory
Tom Brake - 1.6% to Tory
Alistair Carmichael - 1.8% to SNP
Clegg's Replacement - 2.1% to Labour
Greg Mulholland 3.4% to Labour
Mark Williams - 4.1% to Plaid
Norman Lamb - 4.1% to Tory
Tim Farron - 9.2% to Tory
The worst may not be over for them. And of course it assumes they don't get a raw deal from the boundary changes and reduction. Which they almost certainly will.
I am sure that there are pros to a coalition, but there are also a lot of cons. The further you are from the political centre, the more cons and fewer pros you will see.
And we all know that compromise is two grown people doing what they both know to be wrong.
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-04-08/subpoenaed-into-silence-on-global-warming
In the event, Willett won by 3 strokes ..... tasty!
They require a Statutory Instrument to pass both Commons and Lords.
No readings / amendments / committee etc - just one straight vote in each House.
Of course the Government could well lose it in the Lords - which is why it's worth keeping a very close eye on Lords numbers over the next two and a half years.
Vote will be in October 2018 (or a bit later).
If the narrative now changes to Labour saying they'll tax parents giving money to their children then that will be an own goal on a massive scale.
Just imagine parents / grandparents thinking about helping their children get the money for a deposit to buy their first home and wondering if Corbyn is going to tax it.
Electoral suicide.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum#2016
Off Topic - entertaining analysis of the SNP & Labour in Scotland:
http://stv.tv/news/politics/1349773-progressives-and-pod-people-how-left-wing-is-the-new-scottish-left/
Jeremy Corbyn exceeds him on this first of these, the others, not so much.
http://www.gov.scot/Resource/Doc/90909/0021837.pdf
If pitched correctly it could be very popular.
It's terrible wishful thinking: "I support a side, and everything will be fine if my side is in power, whatever happens."
For one thing, much will depend on the size of any win. You will probably be right if leave win by more than (say) 10%. Anything less than a 5-10% win and the most important thing would be to pick someone - leaver or remainer - who could bring the two sides together. It would be a moderate leaver, not a loonhard leaver. Look at someone who supports leave but has been fairly quiet but firm on the topic.
If remain win, it would be impossible for a hard leaver to run the party - they'd be too divisive.
And as Major found out, the hard leavers in the Conservative Party care more about disrupting the party than winning elections. That is why I shall continue to call them loons, in the same way I'd say the same about pro-Euro remainers.
The same can be said for the Conservatives. Leavers who see the referendum and defenestration of Cameron as a chance to dive to the right are missing the fact it consistently fails - see Hague and IDS.
The dive to the left or right is besides the point. You cant win in *only* in the middle either as the LDs have proved. Winning is about keeping your core onboard AND appealing to the middle. Blair did it from the left and Thatcher from the right.
If so, what do you think has changed in the electorate that would make a more right-wing party electable?
A whole raft on the centre ground could care less if the government was left, right or upside down as long as they were competent, Hague and IDS weren't, Thatcher was, until she lost it, when she wasn't, she was toast.
Had Cameron gone for Leave, firstly he would have won easily, and secondly the kippers would have imploded, protecting his right flank, and he could have sat in the centre ground all day long, and most of his party would have called him a hero for doing it, now, not so much.
Or do you think it will be electorally popular with those who have nothing to give away, don't aspire to have anything to give away, and think those who have should have it taken off them? And why do you think these Corbynistas aren't already in the Labour column?
I wouldn't call a pro-euro Remainian a loon, I'd call him sensible: the status quo where we hate them for trying to drag us into ever closer union and they resent us for resisting it isn't good for anyone.
"You are wasting your time with me, being out of the EU is more important to our country's future than the short term benefit to either party."
Then you are mad. Barking mad. Stupidly, hilariously, barking mad. Sorry, but there's no other way of putting it. Whatever powers the EU has taken off us, ten years of a Corbynite-sryle government would be far worse.
Take Trident. The EU is unlikely to interfere with Trident, especially as the French have their own deterrent. A Corbynite government would almost certainly not go ahead with the replacement boats. I'm pretty sure the nuclear deterrent is popular with the hard right.
Take railways. A Corbynite government would almost certainly muck about once more with a system that is (eventually) working well.
Take nationalisation. A Corbynite government would be more concerned with ownership structures than what works in each individual industry.
Goodness knows how a Corbynite would damage foreign policy. Would we move from 'hug a hoodie' to 'hug a terrorist' ?
Etcetera, etcetera. You will have government led by political dogma rather than reality. The idea that remaining in the EU would be worse that quickly is laughable.
As for your last paragraph: yes, a party needs to keep its core. But as the 2001 and 2005 elections show, the core of the Conservative vote is not to the hard right of the party. Just as the core of Labour's vote is not to the hard left.
Your argument is also odd as many leavers are painting the EU as the boogieman.
And Corbyn is far more dangerous than Miliband ever would have been. Miliband was out of his depth and clueless. Corbyn is out of his depth and actively malign to the interests of the nation.
Elections won since Thatcher from the hard right: none.
Elections won since Thatcher from the soft right: three.
Elections win since Thatcher from the soft left: three.
Elections won since Thatcher from the hard left: none.
You could argue that Thatcher was soft right as well; it was just her opponents were further to the left by comparison.
I have no interest in Cameron's tax affairs, that's a leftie circlejerk, but if he puts his neck on the line over the EURef he is fair game on anything he says, especially the lies. If leave win his reputation will be dirt anyway, what is said and done by anyone will be irrelevant, more to the point the voters won't even remember him by 2020.
"I am not that interested in what JJ wrote" I said to myself, "but now that he is insulting me, I better go and have a closer look".
Thatcher wasn't hard right, Redwood isn't hard right, Hannan isn't hard right, the damn BNP is hard right, your sights need recalibrating.
The test to apply to Peebie-Tories (or anyone else) who call him "actively malign to the interests of the nation" is to ask - do they think that of Attlee and the 1945 settlement?
I suspect that for mot of them the answer is "yes" - those who cannot learn from the past are condemned to repeat it, yet I suspect that for many Peebie-Tories the 1920s and 1930s are a fantastic Silver Age they would like to return.
Labour... Vote for them once.. get taxed twice.
An ordinary man does say in London at the peak of this current bubble - and leaves his £2 mn house which he bought ages ago but little else. Prices then drop 50% before it can be sold as the bottom falls out the market due to PM Corbyn or w/o. Utterly utterly pernicious.
Je suis Polly - scrap it all.
But that'd just be a stupid thing to say as the reality and motivations are much more complex than that.
"The Conservative party is too right-wing to win a general election, "
Ken Clarke 3 weeks before GE2015
My daughter came to tea last night and drank a fair bit of my wine. Will she need to declare this?
http://www.theguardian.com/news/commentisfree/2016/apr/07/inheritance-tax-cameron-offshore-trusts-eu
Just as deposing Thatcher was in the long term party interest....
The Labour Party stubbornly sticks to this line, nearly forty years later.
An article on taxing earned and unearned income the same that doesn't even mention national insurance?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3532868/Labour-threatens-change-rules-allow-parents-money-children-without-paying-inheritance-tax.html
As for insults: perhaps the more strident leavers should learn that lesson as well.
And the last line is irrelevant as Cameron's said he's going anyway.
Whoever takes over the party will want the party to be in as strong a position as possible. They should not want to take over a party at war with itself. Attempts to depose Cameron will cause such a war.
The trouble with the double taxation point is that much of today's bequests are from unearned house price inflation. So the money hasn't been already taxed.
Politically though, no voters will care about this technicality. I think IHT is a mess, with only middle-ranking actually paying it, which seems unfair. However, I think Labour have walked into a trap, even if the Tories didn't exactly plan this one.
It'll put off aspirational sorts, and it'll put off those likely to pay it.
Miss Plato, an interesting map, although the varying geographical (constituency?) sizes make it a bit tricky to compare numbers easily. I'd guess the two campaigns are roughly even.
That said, I think a lifetime gift tax would be reasonable enough, and would work a bit like the lifetime tax-free pension contribution thing (£1 million or whatever it is) - if total gifts and legacies to you added up to more than say £500,000 then you'd pay tax on them. You'd be asked to declare gifts worth more than say £1000, to get away from the trivial Christmas present stuff, and it would gradually add up if you were lucky enough to get a series of gifts and legacies. Most people would never be affected, as with the pension threshold.
Meanwhile, Cameron's come up with an idea to penalise companies that assist tax evasion.
http://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/10/jeremy-corbyn-suggests-all-mps-should-publish-tax-returns
Now if that applied to all British territories it'd be interesting. I see some scope for engaging with this, with amendments and extensions.
He looked at mum and said: "Bu**er. I thought we'd got rid of that responsibility. Josias, behave!"
It is slightly sad that is has to be repeated in public. Its like suggesting that drivers will be held responsible for their cars. The idea that a not inconsiderable number of parents have that they are not responsible for their (minor) children is the cause of some of the more colourful parts of the UK living experience.
http://www.theguardian.com/news/commentisfree/2016/apr/11/wealth-tax-cameron-myth-all-in-this-together
This passage echoes some of the discussions we've had here:
"The sums in Cameron’s tax returns are relatively small for a product of a wealthy family that sent children to Eton. But to most voters they shine light on a metaphorical foreign land, as well as the real ones that house offshore trusts. In that distant land, a London house earns hundreds of thousands of pounds in rent, mothers have a spare £200,000 in cash to hand over to sons and the language of finance is spoken so fluently that investing cash is as straightforward as buying a loaf of bread."
Guardiania? Where socialism is a paradise, and taxes pay for little Tarquin's piano lessons?