Yes Le Pen now has a clear 4% first round lead in that new Ipsos and is also up 2% to 38% in the run off with Macron. Ifop now have slightly more Fillon voters backing Le Pen than Macron in round 2 though many will abstain https://mobile.twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/839808226774351873
Prior to the last referendum I had estimated the Indy till I die tendancy and the Unionist to the core supporter at about 25% and 35% respectively. That still seems to be roughly the case.
The separatists need to get into the 7s to win. That's a big ask, all else being equal.
What do you mean, 'get into the 7s'?
On the scale 50% of voters are at 7 or above.
7-10 are unionist divisions. Do you/he mean 1-4?
Exactly, to get to 51% Yes needs to get people identifying 7 out of 10 for remaining part of the UK to vote for independence.
Prior to the last referendum I had estimated the Indy till I die tendancy and the Unionist to the core supporter at about 25% and 35% respectively. That still seems to be roughly the case.
The separatists need to get into the 7s to win. That's a big ask, all else being equal.
What do you mean, 'get into the 7s'?
On the scale 50% of voters are at 7 or above.
7-10 are unionist divisions. Do you/he mean 1-4?
Exactly, to get to 51% Yes needs to get people identifying 7 out of 10 for remaining part of the UK to vote for independence.
Prior to the last referendum I had estimated the Indy till I die tendancy and the Unionist to the core supporter at about 25% and 35% respectively. That still seems to be roughly the case.
The separatists need to get into the 7s to win. That's a big ask, all else being equal.
What do you mean, 'get into the 7s'?
On the scale 50% of voters are at 7 or above.
7-10 are unionist divisions. Do you/he mean 1-4?
7-10 make up 50% of the voters. In order to win a majority then the SNP will need to not just win their Indy supporters (1-5) but No supporters ranking themselves at 6 and 7 too.
Prior to the last referendum I had estimated the Indy till I die tendancy and the Unionist to the core supporter at about 25% and 35% respectively. That still seems to be roughly the case.
The separatists need to get into the 7s to win. That's a big ask, all else being equal.
What do you mean, 'get into the 7s'?
On the scale 50% of voters are at 7 or above.
7-10 are unionist divisions. Do you/he mean 1-4?
Exactly, to get to 51% Yes needs to get people identifying 7 out of 10 for remaining part of the UK to vote for independence.
I see. How is that done, do you think?
They could bribe Theresa May to make some hectoring speeches?
In the Netherlands Peil and I&O have VVD leads over the PVV of +2 and +4, compared to -1 and +3 in the last polls.
In 2010 the PVV overperformed their polls by a decent chunk but in 2012 they slightly underperformed.
An interesting degree of uncertainty ahead of an election which is next Wednesday.
Last night you could still get 2.4 on the VVD which I think is value - IMO VVD/PVV should now be evens. There is probably also value in laying Wilders as PM but I don't know enough to tip that.
Edit: Two leaders debates (absent Wilders) down with two (with Wilders) to go on 13/14. The only effect last time was to shift votes between parties of the left, but still a variable when you have a demagogue.
Prior to the last referendum I had estimated the Indy till I die tendancy and the Unionist to the core supporter at about 25% and 35% respectively. That still seems to be roughly the case.
The separatists need to get into the 7s to win. That's a big ask, all else being equal.
What do you mean, 'get into the 7s'?
On the scale 50% of voters are at 7 or above.
7-10 are unionist divisions. Do you/he mean 1-4?
7-10 make up 50% of the voters. In order to win a majority then the SNP will need to not just win their Indy supporters (1-5) but No supporters ranking themselves at 6 and 7 too.
So, given the polling as it stands it means they are already getting the 6s. I wonder what would have happened if the scale was reversed so Indy was 10 and UK was 1.
"The IFS, which traditionally gives its assessment of the government's tax and spending plans the day after the Budget, said the 2% increase in NICs for the self employed closed a small fraction of the gap between employees and the self employed.
It said the maximum loss, affecting those with profits over £45,000, would be £589 per year and that the tax advantage to being self employed would still run into the thousands of pounds."
How can two polls published on the same day be so different?
Opinionway has it 62-38 and Ipsos 55-45
The 7 point change can be explained because their previous head to head poll took place on 20th January, before the Filon scandal hit.
If Fillon is only 55-45 ahead of Le Pen heading into round 2, well he doesn't make it into round 2.
BOTH Macron & Fillon need to implode for Le Pen to have a chance. This offers some protection of value when laying her out.
Agreed, although I did put £25 effectively at 2/1 that Macron wouldn't make the second round. I have also got Fillon a tad longer.
I just want a nice calm couple of weeks to monitor the Macron v Fillon dynamic.
Polls are all over the shop this morning.
First we had Harris saying Macron was leading Le Pen in the first round
Then we had Opinionway saying Fillon was 62-38 against Le Pen head to head.
Now we have Ipsos saying Macron actually isn't leading Le Pen, in fact he is stagnant on 23%, 4 points behind Le Pen. Also Fillon is only 55 -45 against Le Pen, head to head.
Prior to the last referendum I had estimated the Indy till I die tendancy and the Unionist to the core supporter at about 25% and 35% respectively. That still seems to be roughly the case.
The separatists need to get into the 7s to win. That's a big ask, all else being equal.
What do you mean, 'get into the 7s'?
On the scale 50% of voters are at 7 or above.
7-10 are unionist divisions. Do you/he mean 1-4?
Exactly, to get to 51% Yes needs to get people identifying 7 out of 10 for remaining part of the UK to vote for independence.
I see. How is that done, do you think?
They could bribe Theresa May to make some hectoring speeches?
How can two polls published on the same day be so different?
Opinionway has it 62-38 and Ipsos 55-45
The 7 point change can be explained because their previous head to head poll took place on 20th January, before the Filon scandal hit.
If Fillon is only 55-45 ahead of Le Pen heading into round 2, well he doesn't make it into round 2.
BOTH Macron & Fillon need to implode for Le Pen to have a chance. This offers some protection of value when laying her out.
Agreed, although I did put £25 effectively at 2/1 that Macron wouldn't make the second round. I have also got Fillon a tad longer.
I just want a nice calm couple of weeks to monitor the Macron v Fillon dynamic.
Polls are all over the shop this morning.
First we had Harris saying Macron was leading Le Pen in the first round
Then we had Opinionway saying Fillon was 62-38 against Le Pen head to head.
Now we have Ipsos saying Macron actually isn't leading Le Pen, in fact he is stagnant on 23%, 4 points behind Le Pen. Also Fillon is only 55 -45 against Le Pen, head to head.
Doesn't make this betting lark very easy!
Forget about the second round. Concentrate on the first, it's much easier
Macron has taken the fight away from vs Fillon for second and towards Le Pen for first. They are both on ~26% 6% above Fillon on ~20%.
How can two polls published on the same day be so different?
Opinionway has it 62-38 and Ipsos 55-45
The 7 point change can be explained because their previous head to head poll took place on 20th January, before the Filon scandal hit.
If Fillon is only 55-45 ahead of Le Pen heading into round 2, well he doesn't make it into round 2.
BOTH Macron & Fillon need to implode for Le Pen to have a chance. This offers some protection of value when laying her out.
Agreed, although I did put £25 effectively at 2/1 that Macron wouldn't make the second round. I have also got Fillon a tad longer.
I just want a nice calm couple of weeks to monitor the Macron v Fillon dynamic.
Polls are all over the shop this morning.
First we had Harris saying Macron was leading Le Pen in the first round
Then we had Opinionway saying Fillon was 62-38 against Le Pen head to head.
Now we have Ipsos saying Macron actually isn't leading Le Pen, in fact he is stagnant on 23%, 4 points behind Le Pen. Also Fillon is only 55 -45 against Le Pen, head to head.
Doesn't make this betting lark very easy!
Pretty sure I saw a tweet this am punting an article that asked why is French polling so stable. Perhaps it was ironic.
The start of the metamorphosis of Mrs May into Gordon Brown..another unelected, inert, micromanaging PM. Hammond can ask Darling for tips on being left to deal with messes.
It is micromanaging for the PM to leave the Chancellor to sort out the budget?
Run that by me again please.
I rather doubt, given her reputation, that the contents of the budget came as surprise to the PM. The link suggested that she might be prepared to u-turn on some of the contents leaving the Chancellor with egg on his face. So yeah, that could be construed as micro mangement.
How can two polls published on the same day be so different?
Opinionway has it 62-38 and Ipsos 55-45
The 7 point change can be explained because their previous head to head poll took place on 20th January, before the Filon scandal hit.
If Fillon is only 55-45 ahead of Le Pen heading into round 2, well he doesn't make it into round 2.
BOTH Macron & Fillon need to implode for Le Pen to have a chance. This offers some protection of value when laying her out.
Agreed, although I did put £25 effectively at 2/1 that Macron wouldn't make the second round. I have also got Fillon a tad longer.
I just want a nice calm couple of weeks to monitor the Macron v Fillon dynamic.
Polls are all over the shop this morning.
First we had Harris saying Macron was leading Le Pen in the first round
Then we had Opinionway saying Fillon was 62-38 against Le Pen head to head.
Now we have Ipsos saying Macron actually isn't leading Le Pen, in fact he is stagnant on 23%, 4 points behind Le Pen. Also Fillon is only 55 -45 against Le Pen, head to head.
Doesn't make this betting lark very easy!
Forget about the second round. Concentrate on the first, it's much easier
Macron has taken the fight away from vs Fillon for second and towards Le Pen for first. They are both on ~26% 6% above Fillon on ~20%.
It's a bit of a disaster, but a minor one in the overall scheme of things. I don't think a 2% increase for some well-paid people (which is what this is) is really going to be remembered amidst all the Brexit fallout.
Someknd posted yesterday that Osborne put up NI for some last year. Is this true?
Yes, public sector workers
Ok, so the Tories had already reneged on a, or more to the point, this, manifesto commitment. Why the outrage this year and not last?
Self employed columnists weren't effected. Infact Darce and Murdoch probably loved the rise on public sector workers.
I consider myself a student of the tax system and yet I must admit surprise to read here that public and private sector workers paid/pay different rates of NI.
Rubbish, all they did was end contracting out. This wasn't an increase in ni on public sector workers, it effected anyone who still had a defined benefit pension scheme that contracted out of serps/s2p.
If he doesn't have the numbers to back his proposal (and my reading is that he doesn't), he will need to bend - or crash.
Yes, it is looking that way.
Some of the backbench fuss seems to be coming from hardline Brexiteers, who might be using it as a means of weakening the most senior softer-Brexit member of the government.
That would be extremely unwise. The government needs to be strong and perceived to be strong going forward into the Article 50 negotiations. Weakening the government's "grip" is very definitely not in the national interest at this point.
How can two polls published on the same day be so different?
Opinionway has it 62-38 and Ipsos 55-45
The 7 point change can be explained because their previous head to head poll took place on 20th January, before the Filon scandal hit.
If Fillon is only 55-45 ahead of Le Pen heading into round 2, well he doesn't make it into round 2.
BOTH Macron & Fillon need to implode for Le Pen to have a chance. This offers some protection of value when laying her out.
Agreed, although I did put £25 effectively at 2/1 that Macron wouldn't make the second round. I have also got Fillon a tad longer.
I just want a nice calm couple of weeks to monitor the Macron v Fillon dynamic.
Polls are all over the shop this morning.
First we had Harris saying Macron was leading Le Pen in the first round
Then we had Opinionway saying Fillon was 62-38 against Le Pen head to head.
Now we have Ipsos saying Macron actually isn't leading Le Pen, in fact he is stagnant on 23%, 4 points behind Le Pen. Also Fillon is only 55 -45 against Le Pen, head to head.
Doesn't make this betting lark very easy!
Forget about the second round. Concentrate on the first, it's much easier
Macron has taken the fight away from vs Fillon for second and towards Le Pen for first. They are both on ~26% 6% above Fillon on ~20%.
Yes, unless you go by the Ipsos poll which says Le Pen is further ahead of Macron than Macron is ahead of Fillon!!
How can two polls published on the same day be so different?
Opinionway has it 62-38 and Ipsos 55-45
The 7 point change can be explained because their previous head to head poll took place on 20th January, before the Filon scandal hit.
If Fillon is only 55-45 ahead of Le Pen heading into round 2, well he doesn't make it into round 2.
BOTH Macron & Fillon need to implode for Le Pen to have a chance. This offers some protection of value when laying her out.
Agreed, although I did put £25 effectively at 2/1 that Macron wouldn't make the second round. I have also got Fillon a tad longer.
I just want a nice calm couple of weeks to monitor the Macron v Fillon dynamic.
Polls are all over the shop this morning.
First we had Harris saying Macron was leading Le Pen in the first round
Then we had Opinionway saying Fillon was 62-38 against Le Pen head to head.
Now we have Ipsos saying Macron actually isn't leading Le Pen, in fact he is stagnant on 23%, 4 points behind Le Pen. Also Fillon is only 55 -45 against Le Pen, head to head.
Doesn't make this betting lark very easy!
Forget about the second round. Concentrate on the first, it's much easier
Macron has taken the fight away from vs Fillon for second and towards Le Pen for first. They are both on ~26% 6% above Fillon on ~20%.
Macron is only on 23% with Ipsos
Of the six most recent polling companies, four are within one point of Le Pen and two are two/three points back, placing Macron in the middle of the three.
The noise isn't important. If Macron slides, then the best polls will show him in the middle and the worst in a fight with Fillon. That's what matters.
Quite interesting. It possibly wouldn't be built if they thought batteries were a goer ... or might be within the next 30 years. I wonder what private assurances they've had re. returns on investment. Generation's usually seen as the most risky part of the business; the rest is a licence to print money.
It's a bit of a disaster, but a minor one in the overall scheme of things. I don't think a 2% increase for some well-paid people (which is what this is) is really going to be remembered amidst all the Brexit fallout.
Someknd posted yesterday that Osborne put up NI for some last year. Is this true?
Yes, public sector workers
Ok, so the Tories had already reneged on a, or more to the point, this, manifesto commitment. Why the outrage this year and not last?
Self employed columnists weren't effected. Infact Darce and Murdoch probably loved the rise on public sector workers.
I consider myself a student of the tax system and yet I must admit surprise to read here that public and private sector workers paid/pay different rates of NI.
Rubbish, all they did was end contracting out. This wasn't an increase in ni on public sector workers, it effected anyone who still had a defined benefit pension scheme that contracted out of serps/s2p.
There is a possible route back for Osborne if it's true that this farrago is the work of Brexiteers and the loony right (which does seem likely if you see which newspapers are behind it) and that is for Brexit to be a visible and painful disaster.
The idea of Osborne returning won't appeal to everyone but importantly he will have been proved right and will also be the only senior figure not tainted by sailing on Farage's coat-tails
There is a possible route back for Osborne if it's true that this farrago is the work of Brexiteers and the loony right (which does seem likely if you see which newspapers are behind it) and that is for Brexit to be a visible and painful disaster.
The idea of Osborne returning won't appeal to everyone but importantly he will have been proved right and will also be the only senior figure not tainted by sailing on Farage's coat-tails
Given Osborne's commitment at the last election not to increase NI, it will be interesting to see if he now votes for it. Politician keeps promise shocker...
Could the government not mitigate it for low earning self employed people and make up it up by doing something that would also help the environment like levying VAT on newspapers?
It's not costing self-employed up to £16k anything anyway (!)
They gain more from Class 2 NIC abolition than they lose from Class 4 NIC rise.
That's what is so stupid about the moaning. Most self employed people will be better off.
I do not understand the moaning either. If I was still working this tax rise would have caught me and how much would it have cost me? About ten quid a week. That is less than the price of one round down the pub, per week FFS. I wouldn't have noticed the difference.
There maybe some philosophical arguments against the rise but those are only likely to be of interest to right of centre conservatives, not the general public. In pure cash terms on an individual basis this is peanuts. Indeed previous chancellors' increases in beer and fag duty have had more effect.
A very small percentage of people, who are doing pretty well for themselves, are going to be £10 a week worse off and suddenly this is a major storm? No I don't think so.
Could the government not mitigate it for low earning self employed people and make up it up by doing something that would also help the environment like levying VAT on newspapers?
It's not costing self-employed up to £16k anything anyway (!)
They gain more from Class 2 NIC abolition than they lose from Class 4 NIC rise.
That's what is so stupid about the moaning. Most self employed people will be better off.
I do not understand the moaning either. If I was still working this tax rise would have caught me and how much would it have cost me? About ten quid a week. That is less than the price of one round down the pub, per week FFS. I wouldn't have noticed the difference.
There maybe some philosophical arguments against the rise but those are only likely to be of interest to right of centre conservatives, not the general public. In pure cash terms on an individual basis this is peanuts. Indeed previous chancellors' increases in beer and fag duty have had more effect.
A very small percentage of people, who are doing pretty well for themselves, are going to be £10 a week worse off and suddenly this is a major storm? No I don't think so.
That's pretty much the way I see it. Having to repay Child Benefit was multiples of times more painful than this. Don't recall that hurting the Tories too much despite some wingeing at the time.
It will make people less willing to work away from home and accept the downsides such as lack of holiday pay etc because it will be less worthwhile. That may not be good for the country which needs a flexible workforce.
It will make people less willing to work away from home and accept the downsides such as lack of holiday pay etc because it will be less worthwhile. That may not be good for the country which needs a flexible workforce.
If we really wanted to tackle that a better way than using differential tax rates would be to think about how can we extend some benefits to cover the self employed. Make self employment more secure and we'd likely end up with a better labour force than merely cutting the tax a smidgen.
Sorry if it has already been said, but perhaps May & Hammond are of the opinion that the manifesto only applied to the Cameron government, and they have a free hand to do as they please?
The manifesto commitment, and subsequent legislation, was daft. It boxed the Chancellor in far too much. What would they do if there was another economic crisis?
I am content with the policy, but loving the sight of ministers and their lickspittles squirming away, trying to argue that black is white.
So let Hammond do as he pleases, and then be judged at the ballot box in 2020.
It will make people less willing to work away from home and accept the downsides such as lack of holiday pay etc because it will be less worthwhile. That may not be good for the country which needs a flexible workforce.
Oh, give over, Mr Song. The amounts involved are trivial. Nobody is going to change their lifestyle over ten quid a week. People go self-employed for lots of reasons but I don't expect one of them yo change their decision because of a few quid a week.
There is a possible route back for Osborne if it's true that this farrago is the work of Brexiteers and the loony right (which does seem likely if you see which newspapers are behind it) and that is for Brexit to be a visible and painful disaster.
The idea of Osborne returning won't appeal to everyone but importantly he will have been proved right and will also be the only senior figure not tainted by sailing on Farage's coat-tails
Yes, it would be a veritable Churchillian return from political exile to serve his nation in its hour of gravest need. But for a man of such public spirit and high ideals as Osborne, it surely wouldn't be something he'd relish - having to turn his talents to haul his beloved Britain from catastrophe's jaws.
It will make people less willing to work away from home and accept the downsides such as lack of holiday pay etc because it will be less worthwhile. That may not be good for the country which needs a flexible workforce.
If we really wanted to tackle that a better way than using differential tax rates would be to think about how can we extend some benefits to cover the self employed. Make self employment more secure and we'd likely end up with a better labour force than merely cutting the tax a smidgen.
How do you make self-employment more secure?
What would be interesting to see is a breakdown of the total wage bill of an employed person (Employers NI+Employees NI + Inc) versus that of the equivalent for someone doing the same job self employed, the benefits each receives and the costs the self employed person would have if they wanted to emulate the employee benefits (mainly various insurances I guess).
This would give us an estimate of the real tax gap.
Mr. J., Isn't this a bit likely Hinkley C - the right decision but taken a decade or more too late? Improvements in battery technology are likely to make the wretched thing obsolete before it can come into use.
There is a possible route back for Osborne if it's true that this farrago is the work of Brexiteers and the loony right (which does seem likely if you see which newspapers are behind it) and that is for Brexit to be a visible and painful disaster.
The idea of Osborne returning won't appeal to everyone but importantly he will have been proved right and will also be the only senior figure not tainted by sailing on Farage's coat-tails
Yes, it would be a veritable Churchillian return from political exile to serve his nation in its hour of gravest need. But for a man of such public spirit and high ideals as Osborne, it surely wouldn't be something he'd relish - having to turn his talents to haul his beloved Britain from catastrophe's jaws.
Osborne laid down his marker in the A50 debate.
"But he said that by deciding to put immigration control and escaping the jurisdiction of the European court of justice at the top of its agenda, “the government has chosen – and I respect this decision – not to make the economy the priority”.
Could the government not mitigate it for low earning self employed people and make up it up by doing something that would also help the environment like levying VAT on newspapers?
It's not costing self-employed up to £16k anything anyway (!)
They gain more from Class 2 NIC abolition than they lose from Class 4 NIC rise.
That's what is so stupid about the moaning. Most self employed people will be better off.
I do not understand the moaning either. If I was still working this tax rise would have caught me and how much would it have cost me? About ten quid a week. That is less than the price of one round down the pub, per week FFS. I wouldn't have noticed the difference.
There maybe some philosophical arguments against the rise but those are only likely to be of interest to right of centre conservatives, not the general public. In pure cash terms on an individual basis this is peanuts. Indeed previous chancellors' increases in beer and fag duty have had more effect.
A very small percentage of people, who are doing pretty well for themselves, are going to be £10 a week worse off and suddenly this is a major storm? No I don't think so.
That's pretty much the way I see it. Having to repay Child Benefit was multiples of times more painful than this. Don't recall that hurting the Tories too much despite some wingeing at the time.
I can't think who you might be referring to there David ;-)
Sorry if it has already been said, but perhaps May & Hammond are of the opinion that the manifesto only applied to the Cameron government, and they have a free hand to do as they please?
The manifesto commitment, and subsequent legislation, was daft. It boxed the Chancellor in far too much. What would they do if there was another economic crisis?
I am content with the policy, but loving the sight of ministers and their lickspittles squirming away, trying to argue that black is white.
So let Hammond do as he pleases, and then be judged at the ballot box in 2020.
I think that's pretty much right – the damage is largely caused by the preposterous claim that they haven't broken a manifesto pledge, rather than the policy itself, which is – at worst – small beer.
"The taxi-driver wisnae amused. He looked a right c--t. Maist ay them do. The stamp-peyin self-employed ur truly the lowest form ay vermin oan god's earth."
Irvine Welsh, Trainspotting, pp 5-6
Is this view a specifically Scottish thing, or has Hammond gone for a target he knows Corbyn will have little stomach for defending?
There is a possible route back for Osborne if it's true that this farrago is the work of Brexiteers and the loony right (which does seem likely if you see which newspapers are behind it) and that is for Brexit to be a visible and painful disaster.
The idea of Osborne returning won't appeal to everyone but importantly he will have been proved right and will also be the only senior figure not tainted by sailing on Farage's coat-tails
Yes, it would be a veritable Churchillian return from political exile to serve his nation in its hour of gravest need. But for a man of such public spirit and high ideals as Osborne, it surely wouldn't be something he'd relish - having to turn his talents to haul his beloved Britain from catastrophe's jaws.
Oh, give over, Mr Song. The amounts involved are trivial. Nobody is going to change their lifestyle over ten quid a week. People go self-employed for lots of reasons but I don't expect one of them yo change their decision because of a few quid a week.
That's the whole point, though - in terms of finances and tax, this is an absolutely piffling measure. It affects only the self-employed (15% of tax payers). Of those, around the 40% lowest-paid will either pay less NI overall or about the same, compared with this year. Only the top 20% of the self-employed (ie BBC luvvies, lawyers, etc) will pay more than £200 extra per year, and they won't even notice.
Equally, it's piffling in terms of the public finances.
And yet with this piffling measure the government has managed to get itself hit by screaming headlines about clobbering white-van man, destroying entrepreneurship, and trashing its manifesto.
Sorry if it has already been said, but perhaps May & Hammond are of the opinion that the manifesto only applied to the Cameron government, and they have a free hand to do as they please?
The manifesto commitment, and subsequent legislation, was daft. It boxed the Chancellor in far too much. What would they do if there was another economic crisis?
I am content with the policy, but loving the sight of ministers and their lickspittles squirming away, trying to argue that black is white.
So let Hammond do as he pleases, and then be judged at the ballot box in 2020.
I support the NI rise but I don't think your suggestion is the answer.
The manifesto was the Conservative Party manifesto - not Cameron's manifesto.
It was the manifesto on which every Con MP stood.
Which in turn is the reason there is no need for a GE on the switch of PM - because the manifesto still stands.
"The taxi-driver wisnae amused. He looked a right c--t. Maist ay them do. The stamp-peyin self-employed ur truly the lowest form ay vermin oan god's earth."
Irvine Welsh, Trainspotting, pp 5-6
Is this view a specifically Scottish thing, or has Hammond gone for a target he knows Corbyn will have little stomach for defending?
Or maybe he'd just watched the film and and saw £2,000,000,000 flashing in front of his eyes and thought 'You can't just have stuff that is free and escapist, you have to have stuff that is confrontational as well'.
Could the government not mitigate it for low earning self employed people and make up it up by doing something that would also help the environment like levying VAT on newspapers?
It's not costing self-employed up to £16k anything anyway (!)
They gain more from Class 2 NIC abolition than they lose from Class 4 NIC rise.
That's what is so stupid about the moaning. Most self employed people will be better off.
I do not understand the moaning either. If I was still working this tax rise would have caught me and how much would it have cost me? About ten quid a week. That is less than the price of one round down the pub, per week FFS. I wouldn't have noticed the difference.
There maybe some philosophical arguments against the rise but those are only likely to be of interest to right of centre conservatives, not the general public. In pure cash terms on an individual basis this is peanuts. Indeed previous chancellors' increases in beer and fag duty have had more effect.
A very small percentage of people, who are doing pretty well for themselves, are going to be £10 a week worse off and suddenly this is a major storm? No I don't think so.
That's pretty much the way I see it. Having to repay Child Benefit was multiples of times more painful than this. Don't recall that hurting the Tories too much despite some wingeing at the time.
The rights and wrongs, or "fairness" of the NIC tax rise are just noise.
The central problem is we have a government with a precarious mandate, trying to rewrite the constitution.
As far as I can see, May (and Hammond's) mandate comes from;
1) Constitutional convention. 2) The 2015 manifesto that won them a majority. 3) The brexit manifesto - in so far as it existed - as put forward by the official leave campaign.
WIthout a solid mandate of her own, little proxy battles like NICgate will constantly dog the government even before the main Brexit battle begins.
The media discontent is *all* about marking out territory.
There is a possible route back for Osborne if it's true that this farrago is the work of Brexiteers and the loony right (which does seem likely if you see which newspapers are behind it) and that is for Brexit to be a visible and painful disaster.
The idea of Osborne returning won't appeal to everyone but importantly he will have been proved right and will also be the only senior figure not tainted by sailing on Farage's coat-tails
Yes, it would be a veritable Churchillian return from political exile to serve his nation in its hour of gravest need. But for a man of such public spirit and high ideals as Osborne, it surely wouldn't be something he'd relish - having to turn his talents to haul his beloved Britain from catastrophe's jaws.
Not going to happen, but it is certainly entertaining reading comments from the pair of you.
Could the government not mitigate it for low earning self employed people and make up it up by doing something that would also help the environment like levying VAT on newspapers?
It's not costing self-employed up to £16k anything anyway (!)
They gain more from Class 2 NIC abolition than they lose from Class 4 NIC rise.
That's what is so stupid about the moaning. Most self employed people will be better off.
I do not understand the moaning either. If I was still working this tax rise would have caught me and how much would it have cost me? About ten quid a week. That is less than the price of one round down the pub, per week FFS. I wouldn't have noticed the difference.
There maybe some philosophical arguments against the rise but those are only likely to be of interest to right of centre conservatives, not the general public. In pure cash terms on an individual basis this is peanuts. Indeed previous chancellors' increases in beer and fag duty have had more effect.
A very small percentage of people, who are doing pretty well for themselves, are going to be £10 a week worse off and suddenly this is a major storm? No I don't think so.
As I said yesterday on here I don't think this change in and of itself is necessarily a problem. What is a problem is that it is part of an ongoing narrative attacking self employment and small limited companies which seems to make no recognition of the risks and downsides involved in that form of activity. The changes to expenses, flat rate VAT, tax on dividends, IR35 compliance and now NI increases are all part of an ongoing series of changes which make it more and more difficult to operate as a small company. We see this mirrored on here where the ignorance about self employment from some quarters is quite staggering.
At some point there needs to be some recognition from the Government that there are legitimate reasons for starting and running small companies or working as self employed and that they are a fundamental part of the economy.
Oh, give over, Mr Song. The amounts involved are trivial. Nobody is going to change their lifestyle over ten quid a week. People go self-employed for lots of reasons but I don't expect one of them yo change their decision because of a few quid a week.
That's the whole point, though - in terms of finances and tax, this is an absolutely piffling measure. It affects only the self-employed (15% of tax payers). Of those, around the 40% lowest-paid will either pay less NI overall or about the same, compared with this year. Only the top 20% of the self-employed (ie BBC luvvies, lawyers, etc) will pay more than £200 extra per year, and they won't even notice.
Equally, it's piffling in terms of the public finances.
And yet with this piffling measure the government has managed to get itself hit by screaming headlines about clobbering white-van man, destroying entrepreneurship, and trashing its manifesto.
Politically, this is careless.
I'm very cynical about this. I always assume the reaction has been anticipated and hoped for. Perhaps that's not always the case, but I reckon everything that you have said would (or should) have been spotted by the Treasury.
Quite why they've decided to pick this fight is another matter.
On topic, no, I don't think this will last. The Lib Dems made tuition fees front and centre of their campaign. It was a crucial test of faith with a large section of their coalition. Furthermore, the scale of the policy change made a big difference to those affected.
By contrast, the NI changes adversely affect a relatively small section of the Tory support and while the pledge was given, it was hardly central to the campaign. The change also has the benefit of being relatively easy to defend: why shouldn't people earning the same, pay the same?
The Tories may take a hit in the polls and May and Hammond might take a hit on their personal ratings. The former will be short-lived, all else being equal; the latter might remain.
But we'll still be talking about Brexit next week.
Could the government not mitigate it for low earning self employed people and make up it up by doing something that would also help the environment like levying VAT on newspapers?
It's not costing self-employed up to £16k anything anyway (!)
They gain more from Class 2 NIC abolition than they lose from Class 4 NIC rise.
That's what is so stupid about the moaning. Most self employed people will be better off.
I do not understand the moaning either. If I was still working this tax rise would have caught me and how much would it have cost me? About ten quid a week. That is less than the price of one round down the pub, per week FFS. I wouldn't have noticed the difference.
There maybe some philosophical arguments against the rise but those are only likely to be of interest to right of centre conservatives, not the general public. In pure cash terms on an individual basis this is peanuts. Indeed previous chancellors' increases in beer and fag duty have had more effect.
A very small percentage of people, who are doing pretty well for themselves, are going to be £10 a week worse off and suddenly this is a major storm? No I don't think so.
As I said yesterday on here I don't think this change in and of itself is necessarily a problem. What is a problem is that it is part of an ongoing narrative attacking self employment and small limited companies which seems to make no recognition of the risks and downsides involved in that form of activity. The changes to expenses, flat rate VAT, tax on dividends, IR35 compliance and now NI increases are all part of an ongoing series of changes which make it more and more difficult to operate as a small company. We see this mirrored on here where the ignorance about self employment from some quarters is quite staggering.
At some point there needs to be some recognition from the Government that there are legitimate reasons for starting and running small companies or working as self employed and that they are a fundamental part of the economy.
Yes, those are very fair points. Death by a thousand cuts to some degree I suppose. Certainly, you are right that the sheer level of ignorance about the lot of the self-employed has been thrown under the spotlight by this latest government wheeze, certainly if PB is any way typical.
They should, breaking promises needs explanation and contrition. Better than dropping it out of embarrassment, if they do indeed think it is a good idea.
At some point there needs to be some recognition from the Government that there are legitimate reasons for starting and running small companies or working as self employed and that they are a fundamental part of the economy.
I think the government does absolutely recognise that, but they also know that a large number of micro-companies and self-employment arrangements are just tax avoidance schemes and that they are losing a lot of tax (or, to put it another way, that employees paid under PAYE are being unfairly hit). The problem they have is that they can't figure out how to clobber the tax avoiders without clobbering the genuine small businesses, and they can't reduce tax/NI on employees because they desperately need the dosh and it's a very easy tax to collect.
In that context, Phil Hammond's very small and tentative step to marginally reduce the huge NI gap is sensible in itself, but for the reasons I've already given, politically inept.
On topic, no, I don't think this will last. The Lib Dems made tuition fees front and centre of their campaign. It was a crucial test of faith with a large section of their coalition. Furthermore, the scale of the policy change made a big difference to those affected.
By contrast, the NI changes adversely affect a relatively small section of the Tory support and while the pledge was given, it was hardly central to the campaign. The change also has the benefit of being relatively easy to defend: why shouldn't people earning the same, pay the same?
The Tories may take a hit in the polls and May and Hammond might take a hit on their personal ratings. The former will be short-lived, all else being equal; the latter might remain.
But we'll still be talking about Brexit next week.
"The change also has the benefit of being relatively easy to defend: why shouldn't people earning the same, pay the same?"
For very good reasons, as several on here have explained.
Consider this: parents get many more tax benefits than non-parents. It's not fair. But we accept it as a society as encouraging people to have kids and to be able to look after them is important for all.
Likewise: having the guts to become self-employed, and maybe later set up a business and creating jobs is an activity we should be encouraging as a society.
If people are abusing the system, then that's a separate problem.
In that context, Phil Hammond's very small and tentative step to marginally reduce the huge NI gap is sensible in itself, but for the reasons I've already given, politically inept.
I have to admit I am uneasy at how alot that classify themselves in the political left and centre are showing themselves to be against a modest attempt to create progressive and fair taxation. It is worrying.
Sorry if it has already been said, but perhaps May & Hammond are of the opinion that the manifesto only applied to the Cameron government, and they have a free hand to do as they please?
The manifesto commitment, and subsequent legislation, was daft. It boxed the Chancellor in far too much. What would they do if there was another economic crisis?
I am content with the policy, but loving the sight of ministers and their lickspittles squirming away, trying to argue that black is white.
So let Hammond do as he pleases, and then be judged at the ballot box in 2020.
I support the NI rise but I don't think your suggestion is the answer.
The manifesto was the Conservative Party manifesto - not Cameron's manifesto.
It was the manifesto on which every Con MP stood.
Which in turn is the reason there is no need for a GE on the switch of PM - because the manifesto still stands.
Quite. Unless they had a problem with the manifesto at the time, they cannot pretend now it is terrible, they have to, unless they explain why thingsd are different now, expect people to think the manifesto stands.
The Ed Stone, a star quality, too heavy for the platform, jaw dropping banality, immediately mocked, undeclared electoral expense, with found extra bad publicity with an Electoral Commission fine. One of the best publicity stunts for opposing parties.
Consider this: parents get many more tax benefits than non-parents. It's not fair. But we accept it as a society as encouraging people to have kids and to be able to look after them is important for all.
This has really really changed since when I grew up. Limit child benefit to one I say.
In that context, Phil Hammond's very small and tentative step to marginally reduce the huge NI gap is sensible in itself, but for the reasons I've already given, politically inept.
I have to admit I am uneasy at how alot that classify themselves in the political left and centre are showing themselves to be against a modest attempt to create progressive and fair taxation. It is worrying.
I'm neutral on the change. But note that there is nothing at all rightwing about putting money in working people's pockets. That it has become a feature of leftwingery that clobbering people who work hard and creating disincentives to work is a big problem that the Left has long needed to address.
..essentially the hysteria is solely around Hammond breaking that silly Cameron tax pledge
"That silly tax pledge" might just have been the difference between Cameron winning a majority in 2015 and having to go into coalition with the LD's again. If it swung a few seats then that would be the case.
So if he had not made "that silly pledge" then it is quite possible that we would have not had the Referendum.
So some might think that a pledge that has had such far-reaching consequences isn't just a "silly pledge"
I have bitten the bullet and backed Ferrari for the constructors', and Hamilton for the drivers' titles. The odds are (were ?) decent enough to provide a profit should either eventuality come about - and it's just conceivable, though highly unlikely, for both to happen.
Chandok comments on autosport... Been to see cars at Turn 3, 4 and 5 now. The Ferrari and Mercedes are in a class of their own.... ...At turn 5 it's clear that the driveability and traction from the Merc is still the gold standard though.
I'm neutral on the change. But note that there is nothing at all rightwing about putting money in working people's pockets. That it has become a feature of leftwingery that clobbering people who work hard and creating disincentives to work is a big problem that the Left has long needed to address.
Lets equalise National Insurance for all then.
Why should employed PAYE have to pay more for the same income ?
The enterprising lady will have to tighten her belt.
Someone will always have to, the question is is it unfair, or should we not spend the additional money it was to generate instead and would that be worse?
..essentially the hysteria is solely around Hammond breaking that silly Cameron tax pledge
"That silly tax pledge" might just have been the difference between Cameron winning a majority in 2015 and having to go into coalition with the LD's again. If it swung a few seats then that would be the case.
So if he had not made "that silly pledge" then it is quite possible that we would have not had the Referendum.
So some might think that a pledge that has had such far-reaching consequences isn't just a "silly pledge"
And if it did, they will face electoral consequences for breaking it. And if they don't, people don't care.
Yeah, well, we'll soon find out if they really want the EU to be a "beacon of free trade in the world at a time when there are more protectionist attitudes and policies elsewhere", given that the fifth largest world economy, which just happens to be right on their doorstep and already complies 100% with EU product regulations, is offering them a comprehensive free-trade agreement with zero tariffs and the absolute minimum of non-tariff barriers possible.
IFS and Resolution foundation both endorsing the NIC changes as justified and progressive. Both Sky and the BBC reporting Paul Johnson (IFS) endorsement. Some MPs need to be careful that this policy has been endorsed by these bodies and they will look to be on tbe wrong side of the argument
Around 2.2 and 7.8 on Betfair; looking to trade in and out if one or the other lengthens/shortens significantly before the first race. (Of course could have got far better odds on Ferrari prior to testing.)
I couldn't see anything wrong with the pasty tax making the rules the same for takeaway hot snacks.
Except Greggs whipped up a good media storm that could be used to beat the ever popular Osbourne
I couldn't see anything wrong with The Granny tax was miss named and basically sound
Except the media whipped up a good media storm that could be used to beat the ever popular Osbourne
I couldn't see anything wrong with The Charity tax which was basically sound
Except the Rich who use a loophole and the Charity sector whipped up a good media storm that could be used to beat the ever popular Osbourne
I can't see anything wrong with the NI increase which appears to be well targeted to hit the wealthier harder than the JAMs
Except it will apply to journalists who have whipped up a good media storm that could be used to beat the ever popular Hammond
Agree - lets see if May & Hammond are made of sterner stuff than the posh boys....
Those would be the very same "posh boys" you supported wholeheartedly and enthusiastically before they left the stage.
Why don't you go back to droning on and on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on and on about child benefit?
Yeah, well, we'll soon find out if they really want the EU to be a "beacon of free trade in the world at a time when there are more protectionist attitudes and policies elsewhere", given that the fifth largest world economy, which just happens to be right on their doorstep and already complies 100% with EU product regulations, is offering them a comprehensive free-trade agreement with zero tariffs and the absolute minimum of non-tariff barriers possible.
The ball is entirely in their court.
Is it offering to stay in the internal market? No? It thinks it can negotiate better deals with the rest of the world? We'll see about that...
Comments
https://mobile.twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/839808226774351873
I just want a nice calm couple of weeks to monitor the Macron v Fillon dynamic.
In 2010 the PVV overperformed their polls by a decent chunk but in 2012 they slightly underperformed.
An interesting degree of uncertainty ahead of an election which is next Wednesday.
Last night you could still get 2.4 on the VVD which I think is value - IMO VVD/PVV should now be evens. There is probably also value in laying Wilders as PM but I don't know enough to tip that.
Edit: Two leaders debates (absent Wilders) down with two (with Wilders) to go on 13/14. The only effect last time was to shift votes between parties of the left, but still a variable when you have a demagogue.
"The IFS, which traditionally gives its assessment of the government's tax and spending plans the day after the Budget, said the 2% increase in NICs for the self employed closed a small fraction of the gap between employees and the self employed.
It said the maximum loss, affecting those with profits over £45,000, would be £589 per year and that the tax advantage to being self employed would still run into the thousands of pounds."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39219275
First we had Harris saying Macron was leading Le Pen in the first round
Then we had Opinionway saying Fillon was 62-38 against Le Pen head to head.
Now we have Ipsos saying Macron actually isn't leading Le Pen, in fact he is stagnant on 23%, 4 points behind Le Pen. Also Fillon is only 55 -45 against Le Pen, head to head.
Doesn't make this betting lark very easy!
Macron has taken the fight away from vs Fillon for second and towards Le Pen for first. They are both on ~26% 6% above Fillon on ~20%.
Self-employed builder just glad he’s cash only
https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/5yehar/selfemployed_builder_just_glad_hes_cash_only/
I reckon she'd do it for free
The noise isn't important. If Macron slides, then the best polls will show him in the middle and the worst in a fight with Fillon. That's what matters.
I couldn't see anything wrong with the pasty tax making the rules the same for takeaway hot snacks.
Except Greggs whipped up a good media storm that could be used to beat the ever popular Osbourne
I couldn't see anything wrong with The Granny tax was miss named and basically sound
Except the media whipped up a good media storm that could be used to beat the ever popular Osbourne
I couldn't see anything wrong with The Charity tax which was basically sound
Except the Rich who use a loophole and the Charity sector whipped up a good media storm that could be used to beat the ever popular Osbourne
I can't see anything wrong with the NI increase which appears to be well targeted to hit the wealthier harder than the JAMs
Except it will apply to journalists who have whipped up a good media storm that could be used to beat the ever popular Hammond
IFS says Government is right to raise National Insurance for self-employed workers
Director Paul Johnson says the change will make the tax system fairer
The idea of Osborne returning won't appeal to everyone but importantly he will have been proved right and will also be the only senior figure not tainted by sailing on Farage's coat-tails
There maybe some philosophical arguments against the rise but those are only likely to be of interest to right of centre conservatives, not the general public. In pure cash terms on an individual basis this is peanuts. Indeed previous chancellors' increases in beer and fag duty have had more effect.
A very small percentage of people, who are doing pretty well for themselves, are going to be £10 a week worse off and suddenly this is a major storm? No I don't think so.
The manifesto commitment, and subsequent legislation, was daft. It boxed the Chancellor in far too much. What would they do if there was another economic crisis?
I am content with the policy, but loving the sight of ministers and their lickspittles squirming away, trying to argue that black is white.
So let Hammond do as he pleases, and then be judged at the ballot box in 2020.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/03/german-institute-successfully-tests-underwater-energy-storage-sphere/
https://phys.org/news/2013-05-storage-power-seabed.html
https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/fraunhofer-races-hydrostor-for-underwater-storage
The Chancellor was "brilliant" yesterday.
Huzzah for Hammo ....
What would be interesting to see is a breakdown of the total wage bill of an employed person (Employers NI+Employees NI + Inc) versus that of the equivalent for someone doing the same job self employed, the benefits each receives and the costs the self employed person would have if they wanted to emulate the employee benefits (mainly various insurances I guess).
This would give us an estimate of the real tax gap.
Solid start from England. Pitch a tad uneven.
"But he said that by deciding to put immigration control and escaping the jurisdiction of the European court of justice at the top of its agenda, “the government has chosen – and I respect this decision – not to make the economy the priority”.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/01/george-osborne-uk-brexit-plans-do-not-prioritise-the-economy
I think that's pretty much right – the damage is largely caused by the preposterous claim that they haven't broken a manifesto pledge, rather than the policy itself, which is – at worst – small beer.
Irvine Welsh, Trainspotting, pp 5-6
Is this view a specifically Scottish thing, or has Hammond gone for a target he knows Corbyn will have little stomach for defending?
Equally, it's piffling in terms of the public finances.
And yet with this piffling measure the government has managed to get itself hit by screaming headlines about clobbering white-van man, destroying entrepreneurship, and trashing its manifesto.
Politically, this is careless.
The manifesto was the Conservative Party manifesto - not Cameron's manifesto.
It was the manifesto on which every Con MP stood.
Which in turn is the reason there is no need for a GE on the switch of PM - because the manifesto still stands.
Fake news.
The central problem is we have a government with a precarious mandate, trying to rewrite the constitution.
As far as I can see, May (and Hammond's) mandate comes from;
1) Constitutional convention.
2) The 2015 manifesto that won them a majority.
3) The brexit manifesto - in so far as it existed - as put forward by the official leave campaign.
WIthout a solid mandate of her own, little proxy battles like NICgate will constantly dog the government even before the main Brexit battle begins.
The media discontent is *all* about marking out territory.
At some point there needs to be some recognition from the Government that there are legitimate reasons for starting and running small companies or working as self employed and that they are a fundamental part of the economy.
Quite why they've decided to pick this fight is another matter.
By contrast, the NI changes adversely affect a relatively small section of the Tory support and while the pledge was given, it was hardly central to the campaign. The change also has the benefit of being relatively easy to defend: why shouldn't people earning the same, pay the same?
The Tories may take a hit in the polls and May and Hammond might take a hit on their personal ratings. The former will be short-lived, all else being equal; the latter might remain.
But we'll still be talking about Brexit next week.
@bbclaurak: PM has arrived at summit without going anywhere near reporters -official reason is they were late, but other leaders still turning up
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/09/new-memorial-to-all-involved-in-iraq-and-afghanistan-conflicts#img-2
In that context, Phil Hammond's very small and tentative step to marginally reduce the huge NI gap is sensible in itself, but for the reasons I've already given, politically inept.
"The change also has the benefit of being relatively easy to defend: why shouldn't people earning the same, pay the same?"
For very good reasons, as several on here have explained.
Consider this: parents get many more tax benefits than non-parents. It's not fair. But we accept it as a society as encouraging people to have kids and to be able to look after them is important for all.
Likewise: having the guts to become self-employed, and maybe later set up a business and creating jobs is an activity we should be encouraging as a society.
If people are abusing the system, then that's a separate problem.
It is worrying.
Yellow Face
American Voice
https://twitter.com/brexit/status/839854300583116801
I'm neutral on the change. But note that there is nothing at all rightwing about putting money in working people's pockets. That it has become a feature of leftwingery that clobbering people who work hard and creating disincentives to work is a big problem that the Left has long needed to address.
So if he had not made "that silly pledge" then it is quite possible that we would have not had the Referendum.
So some might think that a pledge that has had such far-reaching consequences isn't just a "silly pledge"
I have bitten the bullet and backed Ferrari for the constructors', and Hamilton for the drivers' titles. The odds are (were ?) decent enough to provide a profit should either eventuality come about - and it's just conceivable, though highly unlikely, for both to happen.
Chandok comments on autosport...
Been to see cars at Turn 3, 4 and 5 now. The Ferrari and Mercedes are in a class of their own....
...At turn 5 it's clear that the driveability and traction from the Merc is still the gold standard though.
Why should employed PAYE have to pay more for the same income ?
http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/self-employed-sex-worker-slams-painful-tax-hike/story-30190250-detail/story.html
The enterprising lady will have to tighten her belt.
Come on, that is the real story here isn't it.
The ball is entirely in their court.
Well there's an obvious answer: If it's so easy to become self-employed and pay less tax, then they can resign and start their own business.
(Of course could have got far better odds on Ferrari prior to testing.)