Incidentally, one of my pet theories is that Blair did well as leader because he was supported by small businesses who did very well out of ltd company small income rates...
No. He was a Tory who was the leader of the Labour Party.
Jeez Labour are screwed then. The only Labour leader to win a general election in the last 42 years was a Tory.
Time to wind up the Labour Party.
Yes. On that basis, Labour - as in proper Labour - has won only one working majority in the last 70 years - the same number of World Cups that England have won (and coincidentally in the same year). Odds on a Corbyn/Southgate double?
The point about the private poll is interesting. The Conservatives could commission one, because they don't have a candidate in this by-election. But then they could share it with one of the candidates if they so wished, which no doubt he would find helpful in informing how to conduct his campaign.
Where has all this talk of reducing corporation tax come from? Britain is currently running a stonking deficit. While I get that reducing corporation tax in the long run might increase tax take, that isn't going to happen in the short or medium term, and it's in the short and the medium term that the Chancellor needs revenues.
It was a very, very stupid thing to say in the first place.
Tax cuts for the best off and for big business. It's just more of the same.
Brexit will mean buying off a raft of special interest groups with diminished revenues. Brexit will screw the poor bloody infantry, who voted for it in a cry to be heard, more comprehensively than ever.
Of course - that was always going to be the case. But with FPTP and Corbyn in place the Tories only need to keep pensioners and well-off home-owners happy and they will be fine.
Back to the idea of abolishing Corporation Tax and resetting other tax rates to absorb accordingly - what would be the politics? No doubt the left would, as usual, completely miss the point and paint it as Christmas for fat cats. More interestingly, I suspect the market would be very positive and the EU disgusted as it would pose a direct free market alternative to their centralising, harmonising high tax agenda. Domestically, if the adjusting/absorbing was done very carefully, sensibly and in a way that was demonstrably more equitable than the status quo ante it could be wildly popular.
The point about the private poll is interesting. The Conservatives could commission one, because they don't have a candidate in this by-election. But then they could share it with one of the candidates if they so wished, which no doubt he would find helpful in informing how to conduct his campaign.
It would count towards candidate's spending limit.
That's why it much better if a news organisation or rich peer commissions said poll.
Lord Ashcroft was so inadvertently useful to the Tories at GE2015 it helped reinforce Labour's meme about their ground game and contact rates
As an aside, I think people are wrong to count Macron out. In the polling, he's only just behind Fillon in the first round (17.5% vs 19%), and Fillon's socially conservative, economically Thatcherite message doesn't go down that well with everyone in France.
Macron's big problem is that he's fighting for the centrist vote with Bayrou, who's currently on about 8% in the polls. If Bayrou were to choose not to stand, which is by no means unlikely, then that 20-1 would look very, very tempting.
Macron v Le Pen in round 2 would be a true demonstration of the new realignment in politics, along Globalist-Nationalist lines rather than traditional left-right lines. A stunning failure of both main parties to fail to make it to round 2.
@TheScreamingEagles Why would it count towards the candidate's cost limit? If he had no part in commissioning it but just happened to get sight of it, surely that would just be a fortunate occurrence.
Otherwise parties could sabotage rivals in by-elections by commissioning polls and then emailing them the results.
Back to the idea of abolishing Corporation Tax and resetting other tax rates to absorb accordingly - what would be the politics? No doubt the left would, as usual, completely miss the point and paint it as Christmas for fat cats. More interestingly, I suspect the market would be very positive and the EU disgusted as it would pose a direct free market alternative to their centralising, harmonising high tax agenda. Domestically, if the adjusting/absorbing was done very carefully, sensibly and in a way that was demonstrably more equitable than the status quo ante it could be wildly popular.
With one of the lowest CT rates among the world's big economies the UK has wage stagnation and low R&D investment. Why would making it any lower improve things? It would just mean bigger dividends for shareholders and higher salaries in the boardroom. It's a policy for the 1%. So I expect to see it happen sooner rather than later. John McDonnell will probably cheer it on.
Incidentally, one of my pet theories is that Blair did well as leader because he was supported by small businesses who did very well out of ltd company small income rates...
No. He was a Tory who was the leader of the Labour Party.
He was the "wet" Tory Thatcher systematically got rid of. Combined with being leader of the Labour Party he was unbeatable
It turns out that Blair is to the left of pro-hard Brexit, pro-Putin and pro-tax cuts for the best off Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell.
@TheScreamingEagles Why would it count towards the candidate's cost limit? If he had no part in commissioning it but just happened to get sight of it, surely that would just be a fortunate occurrence.
Otherwise parties could sabotage rivals in by-elections by commissioning polls and then emailing them the results.
Doesn't pass the reasonable or smell test. Cui bono as they.
Plus with Theresa May's Chief of Staff being implicated in the investigations in Tory spends at GE2015, the Tories aren't going there.
So this Fillon bloke - who nobody on PB seemed to have heard of a week ago - is now favourite to become President of France.
Meanwhile Juppe - who we were told was a certainty - flopped badly.
Two conclusions might be drawn:
1) Elections continue to produce surprise results 2) PB isn't as knowledgeable as it thinks it is
If you look back a thread or several, there are lots of pb punters talking about backing Fillon from 7/1 down. As a latecomer to the party, I took 11/4 yesterday.
And well done to all those who are green on the French election.
I wonder though how many are down overall having previously bet on the supposed certainty Juppe.
I'm underwater here, Juppe best get knocked out next weekend...
Back to the idea of abolishing Corporation Tax and resetting other tax rates to absorb accordingly - what would be the politics? No doubt the left would, as usual, completely miss the point and paint it as Christmas for fat cats. More interestingly, I suspect the market would be very positive and the EU disgusted as it would pose a direct free market alternative to their centralising, harmonising high tax agenda. Domestically, if the adjusting/absorbing was done very carefully, sensibly and in a way that was demonstrably more equitable than the status quo ante it could be wildly popular.
With one of the lowest CT rates among the world's big economies the UK has wage stagnation and low R&D investment. Why would making it any lower improve things? It would just mean bigger dividends for shareholders and higher salaries in the boardroom. It's a policy for the 1%. So I expect to see it happen sooner rather than later. John McDonnell will probably cheer it on.
Stagnant wages can be dealt with by increasing the national living wage, perhaps. R&D is a bit more difficult to deal with. Better to try and deal with the reasons its not happening rather than tweak tax levels to encourage it though.
Interestingly with the introduction of the apprentice levy, the government is reducing corporation tax but adding other earmarked costs to companies. Perhaps the government could introduce an R&D levy on UK companies.
Back to the idea of abolishing Corporation Tax and resetting other tax rates to absorb accordingly - what would be the politics? No doubt the left would, as usual, completely miss the point and paint it as Christmas for fat cats. More interestingly, I suspect the market would be very positive and the EU disgusted as it would pose a direct free market alternative to their centralising, harmonising high tax agenda. Domestically, if the adjusting/absorbing was done very carefully, sensibly and in a way that was demonstrably more equitable than the status quo ante it could be wildly popular.
With one of the lowest CT rates among the world's big economies the UK has wage stagnation and low R&D investment. Why would making it any lower improve things? It would just mean bigger dividends for shareholders and higher salaries in the boardroom. It's a policy for the 1%. So I expect to see it happen sooner rather than later. John McDonnell will probably cheer it on.
It catches all the luvvies and the companies they set up to avoid tax, and Ken Livingstone.
"Blundering Boris Johnson has been accused of bringing the wrong notes to a Brexit meeting with Theresa May. The bumbling Foreign Secretary was said to have prompted "groans of disapproval" when he made the gaffe at a Downing Street get-together. According to sources who spoke to the Mail on Sunday, the incident happened at Thursday's meeting of the Cabinet Brexit committee.
The question here is, who's spinning against Boris and why? My first thought is that it's an ally of the PM. There's likely to be a massive Tory spit when the Brexit deal is finalized, so this could be a way of undermining Boris if he attempts to lead one particular faction. Or it could be a panicking Leaver, fearful that Boris is turning the Brexit process into a laughing stock and wanting to get rid.
Back to the idea of abolishing Corporation Tax and resetting other tax rates to absorb accordingly - what would be the politics? No doubt the left would, as usual, completely miss the point and paint it as Christmas for fat cats. More interestingly, I suspect the market would be very positive and the EU disgusted as it would pose a direct free market alternative to their centralising, harmonising high tax agenda. Domestically, if the adjusting/absorbing was done very carefully, sensibly and in a way that was demonstrably more equitable than the status quo ante it could be wildly popular.
With one of the lowest CT rates among the world's big economies the UK has wage stagnation and low R&D investment. Why would making it any lower improve things? It would just mean bigger dividends for shareholders and higher salaries in the boardroom. It's a policy for the 1%. So I expect to see it happen sooner rather than later. John McDonnell will probably cheer it on.
Cutting CT and increasing tax paid on dividends? Genius idea - stuff those shareholders risking capital, whilst leaving businesses with more cash to pay overbloated fat cat salaries. What could possibly be wrong with that.
Where has all this talk of reducing corporation tax come from? Britain is currently running a stonking deficit. While I get that reducing corporation tax in the long run might increase tax take, that isn't going to happen in the short or medium term, and it's in the short and the medium term that the Chancellor needs revenues.
Back to the idea of abolishing Corporation Tax and resetting other tax rates to absorb accordingly - what would be the politics? No doubt the left would, as usual, completely miss the point and paint it as Christmas for fat cats. More interestingly, I suspect the market would be very positive and the EU disgusted as it would pose a direct free market alternative to their centralising, harmonising high tax agenda. Domestically, if the adjusting/absorbing was done very carefully, sensibly and in a way that was demonstrably more equitable than the status quo ante it could be wildly popular.
With one of the lowest CT rates among the world's big economies the UK has wage stagnation and low R&D investment. Why would making it any lower improve things? It would just mean bigger dividends for shareholders and higher salaries in the boardroom. It's a policy for the 1%. So I expect to see it happen sooner rather than later. John McDonnell will probably cheer it on.
Cutting CT and increasing tax paid on dividends? Genius idea - stuff those shareholders risking capital, whilst leaving businesses with more cash to pay overbloated fat cat salaries. What could possibly be wrong with that.
Ceteris paribus shareholders should see no change.
Why does May keep running these ideas that simply seem to fall over after a while. There's not even any particular ideological bias/kite flying direction (Grammar schools right, workers on boards, left) to them.
That said, this sort of thing is a mere footnote. It will be the EU and how our departure goes that will define May's electoral fortunes and political legacy.
Why does May keep running these ideas that simply seem to fall over after a while. There's not even any particular ideological bias/kite flying direction (Grammar schools right, workers on boards, left) to them.
Because she is a very poor PM who is completely out of her depth.
Why does May keep running these ideas that simply seem to fall over after a while. There's not even any particular ideological bias/kite flying direction (Grammar schools right, workers on boards, left) to them.
Because she's a bit crap.
Grammar schools was a sop to keep the Brexit right happy.
Unfortunately her inability to answer the question of what happens to the kids that don't get into grammars ruined that idea.
I suppose I should thank her for that as grammar schools are a net negative.
As an aside, I think people are wrong to count Macron out. In the polling, he's only just behind Fillon in the first round (17.5% vs 19%), and Fillon's socially conservative, economically Thatcherite message doesn't go down that well with everyone in France.
Macron's big problem is that he's fighting for the centrist vote with Bayrou, who's currently on about 8% in the polls. If Bayrou were to choose not to stand, which is by no means unlikely, then that 20-1 would look very, very tempting.
Macron v Le Pen in round 2 would be a true demonstration of the new realignment in politics, along Globalist-Nationalist lines rather than traditional left-right lines. A stunning failure of both main parties to fail to make it to round 2.
Socialists should vote tactically for Macron in Round 1 to avoid having to vote for a Republican in Round 2.
Incidentally, one of my pet theories is that Blair did well as leader because he was supported by small businesses who did very well out of ltd company small income rates...
No. He was a Tory who was the leader of the Labour Party.
Jeez Labour are screwed then. The only Labour leader to win a general election in the last 42 years was a Tory.
Time to wind up the Labour Party.
To be fair, we used to be told on pb that every Tory PM whose husband did not have his own Private Eye column was a socialist.
Why does May keep running these ideas that simply seem to fall over after a while. There's not even any particular ideological bias/kite flying direction (Grammar schools right, workers on boards, left) to them.
Sorry replied to wrong post - try again:
Because May isn't very good?
Edit: and I see that I'm just repeating what others have already said anyway!
The government is in a very difficult position, and we all should have a degree of sympathy. Getting the best deal for Britain requires two years of hard negotiations. But that also - inevitably - means increased uncertainty for businesses. So, to counteract that Mrs May is offering incentives - whether explicit guarantees for Nissan and BMW, or more general tax cuts. But, of course, these concessions come with costs for the government, whether political or by reducing the room for manoeuvre in other areas.
Why does May keep running these ideas that simply seem to fall over after a while. There's not even any particular ideological bias/kite flying direction (Grammar schools right, workers on boards, left) to them.
Because she is a very poor PM who is completely out of her depth.
bullshit. She has been only in office a month or two.. I'll bet you wouldn't have been saying that after (YOUR.. not my ) sainted Blair nearly had to go over the Ecclestone affair.
Your mindset now seems that because there really is nothing left to bitch about Corbyn, the only thing you can bitch about is the Govt and especially Mrs May.Its very boring and you are in danger of being repetitive..
She needs time as all new PM's do. They grow into the job.
With one of the lowest CT rates among the world's big economies the UK has wage stagnation and low R&D investment. Why would making it any lower improve things? It would just mean bigger dividends for shareholders and higher salaries in the boardroom. It's a policy for the 1%. So I expect to see it happen sooner rather than later. John McDonnell will probably cheer it on.
The UK also has the best labour market in Europe by a country mile, low unemployment, better growth than its neightbours, and has made more progress than any other heavily-indebted G20 country except the US in reducing its deficit. It had - until June 23rd at least - an economy that was the envy of the Western world.
George Osborne was clearly doing something right. Maybe being business-friendly is rather a good idea.
Why does May keep running these ideas that simply seem to fall over after a while. There's not even any particular ideological bias/kite flying direction (Grammar schools right, workers on boards, left) to them.
Because she is a very poor PM who is completely out of her depth.
bullshit. She has been only in office a month or two.. I'll bet you wouldn't have been saying that after (YOUR.. not my ) sainted Blair nearly had to go over the Ecclestone affair.
Your mindset now seems that because there really is nothing left to bitch about Corbyn, the only thing you can bitch about is the Govt and especially Mrs May.Its very boring and you are in danger of being repetitive..
She needs time as all new PM's do. They grow into the job.
I can only apologise for the fact that you do not like my politics.
As an aside, I think people are wrong to count Macron out. In the polling, he's only just behind Fillon in the first round (17.5% vs 19%), and Fillon's socially conservative, economically Thatcherite message doesn't go down that well with everyone in France.
Macron's big problem is that he's fighting for the centrist vote with Bayrou, who's currently on about 8% in the polls. If Bayrou were to choose not to stand, which is by no means unlikely, then that 20-1 would look very, very tempting.
Macron v Le Pen in round 2 would be a true demonstration of the new realignment in politics, along Globalist-Nationalist lines rather than traditional left-right lines. A stunning failure of both main parties to fail to make it to round 2.
Socialists should vote tactically for Macron in Round 1 to avoid having to vote for a Republican in Round 2.
@George_Osborne: Good to see briefing that corporation tax should be cut again. We got it from 28% to 17%. Next step let's go to 15% & show UK open to biz
Why does May keep running these ideas that simply seem to fall over after a while. There's not even any particular ideological bias/kite flying direction (Grammar schools right, workers on boards, left) to them.
Because she is a very poor PM who is completely out of her depth.
bullshit. She has been only in office a month or two.. I'll bet you wouldn't have been saying that after (YOUR.. not my ) sainted Blair nearly had to go over the Ecclestone affair.
Your mindset now seems that because there really is nothing left to bitch about Corbyn, the only thing you can bitch about is the Govt and especially Mrs May.Its very boring and you are in danger of being repetitive..
She needs time as all new PM's do. They grow into the job.
I can only apologise for the fact that you do not like my politics.
You have lost your sense of reasonableness that you were renowned for.
The government is in a very difficult position, and we all should have a degree of sympathy. Getting the best deal for Britain requires two years of hard negotiations. But that also - inevitably - means increased uncertainty for businesses. So, to counteract that Mrs May is offering incentives - whether explicit guarantees for Nissan and BMW, or more general tax cuts. But, of course, these concessions come with costs for the government, whether political or by reducing the room for manoeuvre in other areas.
The government is packed full of people from the PM down who want to be in this current situation. They deserve no sympathy. They have to deliver.
Why does May keep running these ideas that simply seem to fall over after a while. There's not even any particular ideological bias/kite flying direction (Grammar schools right, workers on boards, left) to them.
Because she is a very poor PM who is completely out of her depth.
bullshit. She has been only in office a month or two.. I'll bet you wouldn't have been saying that after (YOUR.. not my ) sainted Blair nearly had to go over the Ecclestone affair.
Your mindset now seems that because there really is nothing left to bitch about Corbyn, the only thing you can bitch about is the Govt and especially Mrs May.Its very boring and you are in danger of being repetitive..
She needs time as all new PM's do. They grow into the job.
Just because Corbyn is unelectable and dire doesn't mean we should stop the focus on those who are actually in charge.
Why does May keep running these ideas that simply seem to fall over after a while. There's not even any particular ideological bias/kite flying direction (Grammar schools right, workers on boards, left) to them.
Because she is a very poor PM who is completely out of her depth.
bullshit. She has been only in office a month or two.. I'll bet you wouldn't have been saying that after (YOUR.. not my ) sainted Blair nearly had to go over the Ecclestone affair.
Your mindset now seems that because there really is nothing left to bitch about Corbyn, the only thing you can bitch about is the Govt and especially Mrs May.Its very boring and you are in danger of being repetitive..
She needs time as all new PM's do. They grow into the job.
Just because Corbyn is unelectable and dire doesn't mean we should stop the focus on those who are actually in charge.
And who are also dire, but made electable by Corbyn.
@George_Osborne: Good to see briefing that corporation tax should be cut again. We got it from 28% to 17%. Next step let's go to 15% & show UK open to biz
Where has all this talk of reducing corporation tax come from? Britain is currently running a stonking deficit. While I get that reducing corporation tax in the long run might increase tax take, that isn't going to happen in the short or medium term, and it's in the short and the medium term that the Chancellor needs revenues.
Cutting corporation tax to zero and trying to raise the revenue from dividends instead doesn't work, for two reasons. Firstly it produces a massive perverse incentive for companies to hoard cash, rather as Apple does. Secondly, it complicats the problem of getting tax revenues from your own country's business operations when the shareholders are foreign.
Why does May keep running these ideas that simply seem to fall over after a while. There's not even any particular ideological bias/kite flying direction (Grammar schools right, workers on boards, left) to them.
Because she is a very poor PM who is completely out of her depth.
bullshit. She has been only in office a month or two..
Over 4 months as PM now. Time flies when you're making a success of Brexit...
With one of the lowest CT rates among the world's big economies the UK has wage stagnation and low R&D investment. Why would making it any lower improve things? It would just mean bigger dividends for shareholders and higher salaries in the boardroom. It's a policy for the 1%. So I expect to see it happen sooner rather than later. John McDonnell will probably cheer it on.
The UK also has the best labour market in Europe by a country mile, low unemployment, better growth than its neightbours, and has made more progress than any other heavily-indebted G20 country except the US in reducing its deficit. It had - until June 23rd at least - an economy that was the envy of the Western world.
George Osborne was clearly doing something right. Maybe being business-friendly is rather a good idea.
It is. But there is a balance. Having lower CT than almost every single one of our competitors has not led to higher wages or increased R&D spend.
We are also in the process of cutting services and incomes for the lowest paid and the JAMs. Who needs more attention now? Them or those who use CT cuts to increase dividends and to boost boardroom salaries?
Advance notice: On Friday evening there is a meeting of Leeds Central CLP GC. Let's see if the new masters raise the issue of deselection. McDonnell is egging them on...
Why does May keep running these ideas that simply seem to fall over after a while. There's not even any particular ideological bias/kite flying direction (Grammar schools right, workers on boards, left) to them.
Because she is a very poor PM who is completely out of her depth.
bullshit. She has been only in office a month or two.. I'll bet you wouldn't have been saying that after (YOUR.. not my ) sainted Blair nearly had to go over the Ecclestone affair.
Your mindset now seems that because there really is nothing left to bitch about Corbyn, the only thing you can bitch about is the Govt and especially Mrs May.Its very boring and you are in danger of being repetitive..
She needs time as all new PM's do. They grow into the job.
Just because Corbyn is unelectable and dire doesn't mean we should stop the focus on those who are actually in charge.
focus of course but reasoned analysis rather than just bitching.
I am sure I was called out about my "analysis" of Gordon Brown, but at least I proved to be 100% right. the worst PM in living memory.
With one of the lowest CT rates among the world's big economies the UK has wage stagnation and low R&D investment. Why would making it any lower improve things? It would just mean bigger dividends for shareholders and higher salaries in the boardroom. It's a policy for the 1%. So I expect to see it happen sooner rather than later. John McDonnell will probably cheer it on.
The UK also has the best labour market in Europe by a country mile, low unemployment, better growth than its neightbours, and has made more progress than any other heavily-indebted G20 country except the US in reducing its deficit. It had - until June 23rd at least - an economy that was the envy of the Western world.
George Osborne was clearly doing something right. Maybe being business-friendly is rather a good idea.
Re deficits, really?
Our budget deficit is worse than: the US, France, Germany, Canada and Italy.
I guess it is better than Japan's, but that's about it.
Why does May keep running these ideas that simply seem to fall over after a while. There's not even any particular ideological bias/kite flying direction (Grammar schools right, workers on boards, left) to them.
Because she is a very poor PM who is completely out of her depth.
bullshit. She has been only in office a month or two.. I'll bet you wouldn't have been saying that after (YOUR.. not my ) sainted Blair nearly had to go over the Ecclestone affair.
Your mindset now seems that because there really is nothing left to bitch about Corbyn, the only thing you can bitch about is the Govt and especially Mrs May.Its very boring and you are in danger of being repetitive..
She needs time as all new PM's do. They grow into the job.
I tend to browse PB from bottom to top, so quite often read most of a post before seeing the author. It's fascinating how often you can predict the author from tone and defensiveness, and who is the subject of their defensiveness.
Why does May keep running these ideas that simply seem to fall over after a while. There's not even any particular ideological bias/kite flying direction (Grammar schools right, workers on boards, left) to them.
No inside information but one explanation would be that she gets sold on it by an advisor who sells her on the idea and gets her to rush it out before anyone hears about it, then once everyone else does hear about it they explain why it's a stupid idea and she has to quietly bury it.
It is. But there is a balance. Having lower CT than almost every single one of our competitors has not led to higher wages or increased R&D spend.
We are also in the process of cutting services and incomes for the lowest paid and the JAMs. Who needs more attention now? Them or those who use CT cuts to increase dividends and to boost boardroom salaries?
Salaries are paid pre-tax, so the rate of corporation tax isn't terribly relevant to their level, whether it be the salaries of workers or the board. Yes, cutting CT allows increased dividends to be paid, which is the entire idea. If you want to attract and encourage investment, reducing taxes on it is a good idea. That way the investment is attracted here rather than eleswhere.
Meanwhile the lowest paid are being given a stonking payrise, thanks to a Conservative Chancellor. It is, as you rightly say, a balance, and as the results show Osborne balanced it well. We'll see on Wednesday what Phillip Hammond does, but he hasn't got much room for manoeuvre to do things very differently.
Why does May keep running these ideas that simply seem to fall over after a while. There's not even any particular ideological bias/kite flying direction (Grammar schools right, workers on boards, left) to them.
Because she is a very poor PM who is completely out of her depth.
bullshit. She has been only in office a month or two.. I'll bet you wouldn't have been saying that after (YOUR.. not my ) sainted Blair nearly had to go over the Ecclestone affair.
Your mindset now seems that because there really is nothing left to bitch about Corbyn, the only thing you can bitch about is the Govt and especially Mrs May.Its very boring and you are in danger of being repetitive..
She needs time as all new PM's do. They grow into the job.
I tend to read PB from bottom to top, so quite often read most of a post before seeing the author. It's fascinating how often you can predict the author from tone and defensiveness, and who is the subject of their defensiveness.
A 'month or two', or even four.
It seems a lot longer than four months for we Cameroons.
Cutting corporation tax to zero and trying to raise the revenue from dividends instead doesn't work, for two reasons. Firstly it produces a massive perverse incentive for companies to hoard cash, rather as Apple does. Secondly, it complicats the problem of getting tax revenues from your own country's business operations when the shareholders are foreign.
That is a great point regarding the overseas split of corporation tax and dividends. It is an error to regard all forms of tax and benefit as applying solely to UK citizens. Inevitably there will be differential change.
@George_Osborne: Good to see briefing that corporation tax should be cut again. We got it from 28% to 17%. Next step let's go to 15% & show UK open to biz
Your hero speaks!
Osborne was pushing for this reduction from the day after the referendum.
''Cutting corporation tax to zero and trying to raise the revenue from dividends instead doesn't work, for two reasons. Firstly it produces a massive perverse incentive for companies to hoard cash, rather as Apple does. Secondly, it complicats the problem of getting tax revenues from your own country's business operations when the shareholders are foreign. ''
It really does sound as if we are on the road to giving up trying to get money from big companies entirely.
On topic: Having canvassed over a hundred households face to face (and more on the phone) I'm sticking with my estimate that the chance of a LibDem victory is about 33% (2/1 against or 3s on Betfair). About the same chance as Trump had. Sarah probably won't win but it is entirely possible she will.
My reading is that the tactical vote from Lab and Green is solid - which halves the 23,000 majority. The key is how many Tory voters will switch to LibDem (some definitely will because of Brexit - no idea how many) and how many Tories will sit this one out and not vote (an unnecessary by-election, only vote Tory etc). I just don't know. I doubt anyone does.
I believe that voters who want change have more energy to vote than those who are content with the status quo. (Some evidence: EU ref, Trump, Obama).
Brexit is now the status quo -"a done deal". Not much energy to go out to defend it. But lots of energy by Remainers to oppose it.
With one of the lowest CT rates among the world's big economies the UK has wage stagnation and low R&D investment. Why would making it any lower improve things? It would just mean bigger dividends for shareholders and higher salaries in the boardroom. It's a policy for the 1%. So I expect to see it happen sooner rather than later. John McDonnell will probably cheer it on.
The UK also has the best labour market in Europe by a country mile, low unemployment, better growth than its neightbours, and has made more progress than any other heavily-indebted G20 country except the US in reducing its deficit. It had - until June 23rd at least - an economy that was the envy of the Western world.
George Osborne was clearly doing something right. Maybe being business-friendly is rather a good idea.
Re deficits, really?
Our budget deficit is worse than: the US, France, Germany, Canada and Italy.
I guess it is better than Japan's, but that's about it.
I think the UK deficit has gone down the most, apart from the US. As a proportion of GDP it will be lower this year than France and Italy. Next year it will be lower than the US as well.
Samsung's annus horribilis continues, 4 confirmed reports of Galaxy S7 and S7 Edge phones exploding in the US. Samsung investigating, but a little birdie told me that the S7 had switched battery supplier from Murata and Panasonic to Samsung SDI after there was so much spare capacity left from the cancellation of the Note 7. If that's true then the management are stupider than I expected.
Advance notice: On Friday evening there is a meeting of Leeds Central CLP GC. Let's see if the new masters raise the issue of deselection. McDonnell is egging them on...
It is. But there is a balance. Having lower CT than almost every single one of our competitors has not led to higher wages or increased R&D spend.
We are also in the process of cutting services and incomes for the lowest paid and the JAMs. Who needs more attention now? Them or those who use CT cuts to increase dividends and to boost boardroom salaries?
Salaries are paid pre-tax, so the rate of corporation tax isn't terribly relevant to their level, whether it be the salaries of workers or the board. Yes, cutting CT allows increased dividends to be paid, which is the entire idea. If you want to attract and encourage investment, reducing taxes on it is a good idea. That way the investment is attracted here rather than eleswhere.
Meanwhile the lowest paid are being given a stonking payrise, thanks to a Conservative Chancellor. It is, as you rightly say, a balance, and as the results show Osborne balanced it well. We'll see on Wednesday what Phillip Hammond does, but he hasn't got much room for manoeuvre to do things very differently.
The lowest paid are actually seeing their incomes cut significantly, along with the services they rely on.
Salaries are paid pre-tax, they are set post-tax.
The investment that our lower CT rates has attracted clearly has had little or no effect on incomes and has not led to any kind of surge in R&D spend. I am not sure it has seen any consistent uptick in tax-take either (though I could be wrong on that).
It is. But there is a balance. Having lower CT than almost every single one of our competitors has not led to higher wages or increased R&D spend.
We are also in the process of cutting services and incomes for the lowest paid and the JAMs. Who needs more attention now? Them or those who use CT cuts to increase dividends and to boost boardroom salaries?
Salaries are paid pre-tax, so the rate of corporation tax isn't terribly relevant to their level, whether it be the salaries of workers or the board. Yes, cutting CT allows increased dividends to be paid, which is the entire idea. If you want to attract and encourage investment, reducing taxes on it is a good idea. That way the investment is attracted here rather than eleswhere.
Meanwhile the lowest paid are being given a stonking payrise, thanks to a Conservative Chancellor. It is, as you rightly say, a balance, and as the results show Osborne balanced it well. We'll see on Wednesday what Phillip Hammond does, but he hasn't got much room for manoeuvre to do things very differently.
The lowest paid are actually seeing their incomes cut significantly, along with the services they rely on.
Salaries are paid pre-tax, they are set post-tax.
The lowest paid just got a huge pay rise and are set for more until 2019. If someone chooses to work part time and sees their income go down to to tax credit withdrawal they have no one to blame but themselves.
With one of the lowest CT rates among the world's big economies the UK has wage stagnation and low R&D investment. Why would making it any lower improve things? It would just mean bigger dividends for shareholders and higher salaries in the boardroom. It's a policy for the 1%. So I expect to see it happen sooner rather than later. John McDonnell will probably cheer it on.
The UK also has the best labour market in Europe by a country mile, low unemployment, better growth than its neightbours, and has made more progress than any other heavily-indebted G20 country except the US in reducing its deficit. It had - until June 23rd at least - an economy that was the envy of the Western world.
George Osborne was clearly doing something right. Maybe being business-friendly is rather a good idea.
Re deficits, really?
Our budget deficit is worse than: the US, France, Germany, Canada and Italy.
I guess it is better than Japan's, but that's about it.
Uk down from -10.8 to -4.4 Germany from -4.2 to +0.7 France from -7.2 to -3.6 US down from -9.8 to -3.5 (but coming back up again) Italy down from -5.3 to -2.6
I would say that "has made more progress than any other heavily-indebted G20 country except the US in reducing its deficit." is completely and absolutely inarguable.
It's not good and has not been for at least 20 years the frigate force has been woefully inadequate since I can remember at least back to the 70/80's. Either way it's not about traditional forces anymore though I wish we had more. It would at least slow down any escalation to the use of battlefield tactical nuclear and then intercontinental.
The defence generally these days is the nuclear MAD option. The UK has these weapons as do the French. If I recollect correctly the French nuclear force though are not not ever have been part of NATO whereas we are. That will make a considerable difference unless the French change their position which they won't.
Is that the sixth or the seventh time that a PB Brexiteer has mentioned this? The nation rejoices as employment & resources black spot gets much needed good news.
The lowest paid are actually seeing their incomes cut significantly, along with the services they rely on.
Salaries are paid pre-tax, they are set post-tax.
We were talking about the effect of corporation tax rates on salaries. As I correctly pointed out, the wages of the lowest-paid are increasing substantially at the same time that corporation tax is being slightly reduced.
Now you seem to be switching to talking about benefits and public services. That's a different point altogether, even if it were true.
It is. But there is a balance. Having lower CT than almost every single one of our competitors has not led to higher wages or increased R&D spend.
We are also in the process of cutting services and incomes for the lowest paid and the JAMs. Who needs more attention now? Them or those who use CT cuts to increase dividends and to boost boardroom salaries?
Salaries are paid pre-tax, so the rate of corporation tax isn't terribly relevant to their level, whether it be the salaries of workers or the board. Yes, cutting CT allows increased dividends to be paid, which is the entire idea. If you want to attract and encourage investment, reducing taxes on it is a good idea. That way the investment is attracted here rather than eleswhere.
Meanwhile the lowest paid are being given a stonking payrise, thanks to a Conservative Chancellor. It is, as you rightly say, a balance, and as the results show Osborne balanced it well. We'll see on Wednesday what Phillip Hammond does, but he hasn't got much room for manoeuvre to do things very differently.
The lowest paid are actually seeing their incomes cut significantly, along with the services they rely on.
Salaries are paid pre-tax, they are set post-tax.
The lowest paid just got a huge pay rise and are set for more until 2019. If someone chooses to work part time and sees their income go down to to tax credit withdrawal they have no one to blame but themselves.
Yes, if someone "chooses" to work part-time you might have a point. How many do?
It is. But there is a balance. Having lower CT than almost every single one of our competitors has not led to higher wages or increased R&D spend.
We are also in the process of cutting services and incomes for the lowest paid and the JAMs. Who needs more attention now? Them or those who use CT cuts to increase dividends and to boost boardroom salaries?
Salaries are paid pre-tax, so the rate of corporation tax isn't terribly relevant to their level, whether it be the salaries of workers or the board. Yes, cutting CT allows increased dividends to be paid, which is the entire idea. If you want to attract and encourage investment, reducing taxes on it is a good idea. That way the investment is attracted here rather than eleswhere.
Meanwhile the lowest paid are being given a stonking payrise, thanks to a Conservative Chancellor. It is, as you rightly say, a balance, and as the results show Osborne balanced it well. We'll see on Wednesday what Phillip Hammond does, but he hasn't got much room for manoeuvre to do things very differently.
The lowest paid are actually seeing their incomes cut significantly, along with the services they rely on.
Salaries are paid pre-tax, they are set post-tax.
The lowest paid just got a huge pay rise and are set for more until 2019. If someone chooses to work part time and sees their income go down to to tax credit withdrawal they have no one to blame but themselves.
Yes, if someone "chooses" to work part-time you might have a point. How many do?
Quite a lot. I have the report, give me a minute.
Edit: 86.5% have chosen part time work. 13.5% who are working part time want to work full time. Out of 8.5m part time workers.
One for the fantasists who believe the UK has a negotiating position with the EU member states over defence: twitter.com/kennycarwash/status/800648765963169792
You're seriously quoting commentary on Royal Navy capabilities from someone with the twitter handle @kennycarwash?
The lowest paid are actually seeing their incomes cut significantly, along with the services they rely on.
Salaries are paid pre-tax, they are set post-tax.
We were talking about the effect of corporation tax rates on salaries. As I correctly pointed out, the wages of the lowest-paid are increasing substantially at the same time that corporation tax is being slightly reduced.
Now you seem to be switching to talking about benefits and public services. That's a different point altogether, even if it were true.
Nope, it's all inter-related. If you cut CT you have to make up the difference elsewhere by cutting public spending in one way or another.
The lowest paid are actually seeing their incomes cut significantly, along with the services they rely on.
Salaries are paid pre-tax, they are set post-tax.
We were talking about the effect of corporation tax rates on salaries. As I correctly pointed out, the wages of the lowest-paid are increasing substantially at the same time that corporation tax is being slightly reduced.
Now you seem to be switching to talking about benefits and public services. That's a different point altogether, even if it were true.
Nope, it's all inter-related. If you cut CT you have to make up the difference elsewhere by cutting public spending in one way or another.
Not if the mechanism for recovery is increased wages and tax credit cuts. All you're really doing is transferring the burden of wages from the state to the corporation.
Advance notice: On Friday evening there is a meeting of Leeds Central CLP GC. Let's see if the new masters raise the issue of deselection. McDonnell is egging them on...
It is. But there is a balance. Having lower CT than almost every single one of our competitors has not led to higher wages or increased R&D spend.
We are also in the process of cutting services and incomes for the lowest paid and the JAMs. Who needs more attention now? Them or those who use CT cuts to increase dividends and to boost boardroom salaries?
Salaries are paid pre-tax, so the rate of corporation tax isn't terribly relevant to their level, whether it be the salaries of workers or the board. Yes, cutting CT allows increased dividends to be paid, which is the entire idea. If you want to attract and encourage investment, reducing taxes on it is a good idea. That way the investment is attracted here rather than eleswhere.
Meanwhile the lowest paid are being given a stonking payrise, thanks to a Conservative Chancellor. It is, as you rightly say, a balance, and as the results show Osborne balanced it well. We'll see on Wednesday what Phillip Hammond does, but he hasn't got much room for manoeuvre to do things very differently.
The lowest paid are actually seeing their incomes cut significantly, along with the services they rely on.
Salaries are paid pre-tax, they are set post-tax.
The lowest paid just got a huge pay rise and are set for more until 2019. If someone chooses to work part time and sees their income go down to to tax credit withdrawal they have no one to blame but themselves.
Yes, if someone "chooses" to work part-time you might have a point. How many do?
Quite a lot. I have the report, give me a minute.
Edit: 86.5% have chosen part time work. 13.5% who are working part time want to work full time. Out of 8.5m part time workers.
In other words, around a million people who want to work full-time can't. That's a lot of people.
Comments
No doubt the left would, as usual, completely miss the point and paint it as Christmas for fat cats.
More interestingly, I suspect the market would be very positive and the EU disgusted as it would pose a direct free market alternative to their centralising, harmonising high tax agenda.
Domestically, if the adjusting/absorbing was done very carefully, sensibly and in a way that was demonstrably more equitable than the status quo ante it could be wildly popular.
That's why it much better if a news organisation or rich peer commissions said poll.
Lord Ashcroft was so inadvertently useful to the Tories at GE2015 it helped reinforce Labour's meme about their ground game and contact rates
Otherwise parties could sabotage rivals in by-elections by commissioning polls and then emailing them the results.
None: 3-1
One: 7-5
Two: 3-1
Three: 16-1
Four: 197-1
Plus with Theresa May's Chief of Staff being implicated in the investigations in Tory spends at GE2015, the Tories aren't going there.
Interestingly with the introduction of the apprentice levy, the government is reducing corporation tax but adding other earmarked costs to companies. Perhaps the government could introduce an R&D levy on UK companies.
So what is not to like?
https://reason.com/archives/2016/11/20/america-called-bullshit-on-saint-hillary
However...
The feedback the government is getting from business must be dire given they have been panicked into this.
That said, this sort of thing is a mere footnote. It will be the EU and how our departure goes that will define May's electoral fortunes and political legacy.
Grammar schools was a sop to keep the Brexit right happy.
Unfortunately her inability to answer the question of what happens to the kids that don't get into grammars ruined that idea.
I suppose I should thank her for that as grammar schools are a net negative.
Because May isn't very good?
Edit: and I see that I'm just repeating what others have already said anyway!
Your mindset now seems that because there really is nothing left to bitch about Corbyn, the only thing you can bitch about is the Govt and especially Mrs May.Its very boring and you are in danger of being repetitive..
She needs time as all new PM's do. They grow into the job.
https://twitter.com/kennycarwash/status/800648765963169792
George Osborne was clearly doing something right. Maybe being business-friendly is rather a good idea.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/38050061
https://youtu.be/vKOb-kmOgpI
We are also in the process of cutting services and incomes for the lowest paid and the JAMs. Who needs more attention now? Them or those who use CT cuts to increase dividends and to boost boardroom salaries?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38044763
I am sure I was called out about my "analysis" of Gordon Brown, but at least I proved to be 100% right. the worst PM in living memory.
Our budget deficit is worse than: the US, France, Germany, Canada and Italy.
I guess it is better than Japan's, but that's about it.
A 'month or two', or even four.
@Ed_Miliband: .@theresa_may I would say that whole standing up to the powerful thing you promised is a work in progress...
Meanwhile the lowest paid are being given a stonking payrise, thanks to a Conservative Chancellor. It is, as you rightly say, a balance, and as the results show Osborne balanced it well. We'll see on Wednesday what Phillip Hammond does, but he hasn't got much room for manoeuvre to do things very differently.
It really does sound as if we are on the road to giving up trying to get money from big companies entirely.
My reading is that the tactical vote from Lab and Green is solid - which halves the 23,000 majority. The key is how many Tory voters will switch to LibDem (some definitely will because of Brexit - no idea how many) and how many Tories will sit this one out and not vote (an unnecessary by-election, only vote Tory etc). I just don't know. I doubt anyone does.
I believe that voters who want change have more energy to vote than those who are content with the status quo. (Some evidence: EU ref, Trump, Obama).
Brexit is now the status quo -"a done deal". Not much energy to go out to defend it. But lots of energy by Remainers to oppose it.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2228104/facebook-to-open-new-london-headquarters-in-2017-creating-500-jobs-and-increasing-uk-workforce-to-1500/
Salaries are paid pre-tax, they are set post-tax.
The investment that our lower CT rates has attracted clearly has had little or no effect on incomes and has not led to any kind of surge in R&D spend. I am not sure it has seen any consistent uptick in tax-take either (though I could be wrong on that).
Germany from -4.2 to +0.7
France from -7.2 to -3.6
US down from -9.8 to -3.5 (but coming back up again)
Italy down from -5.3 to -2.6
I would say that "has made more progress than any other heavily-indebted G20 country except the US in reducing its deficit." is completely and absolutely inarguable.
The defence generally these days is the nuclear MAD option. The UK has these weapons as do the French. If I recollect correctly the French nuclear force though are not not ever have been part of NATO whereas we are. That will make a considerable difference unless the French change their position which they won't.
The nation rejoices as employment & resources black spot gets much needed good news.
Now you seem to be switching to talking about benefits and public services. That's a different point altogether, even if it were true.
Edit: 86.5% have chosen part time work. 13.5% who are working part time want to work full time. Out of 8.5m part time workers.