In case we forgot, it was this time last year that Labour briefly went into the lead in the polls (after Osborne tried to cut benefits for disabled people in the Budget).
A real sickener. See this is the problem, if you don't hit a (too lightly taxed) relatively well off portion of the population - just who the hell do you "hit" to get the nation's finances in order ? This is why I pray and hope Hammond won't back down.
It's not the tax increase that's the problem. That seems to have popular support. It's breaking the manifesto commitment not to raise NI which has caused the u turn. It makes 2020 much harder to fight. Why would anyone believe what the 2020 manifesto says if they are breaking the biggest promises from the 2015 one. I'm sure if Dave thought it was possible he would have broken the promise on holding a referendum, that's how politically toxic breaking manifesto commitments is. YouGov just showed that over 50% of people think the Tories would be breaking their promise, it will be very tough to convince those people that they wouldn't also break things from their 2020 one in that campaign.
No, it's not about feathering the beds of the lightly taxed, it's about upholding promises that were made by all of the Cabinet in 2015.
bollocks
Cameron broke loads of pledges - deficit gone by 2015 ? the LDs brought in Uni fees Blairs Labour - where do you start ?
this is westminster bubble stuff, most of the electorate dont care
if you actually think that a) most people read manifestos and b) voters believe policiticans then youve lost the plot Max.
The Lib Dems who lost their seats might disagree but you are generally right about the Westminster bubble. What you miss is that the importance of that bubble in the shape of backbench support for Theresa May and her government. Theresa May was supposed to be different from Cameron. Now, this morning there are signs the Prime Minister understands that even if some Tory spinners on here have not yet caught up.
It's not just tories who think breaking the pledge should be done, if she thinks circumstances have changed to the point it is now necessary. May isn't supposed to be different either, her pitch was about competency as I recall, and toughness, and If she thought it was a good move she should stick to it and if she doesn't shes not as tough as we are told. If she suddenly realises it is not a good move then her competence is not as high as we are told as why was it in there in the first place?
Cameron’s former No 10 Head of Strategy Ameet Gill is on the record as saying that the only reason they came up with the five-year freeze was to fill a ‘hole in the grid’ — branding it as ‘probably the dumbest economic policy that anyone could make’.
Bet the Tories cannot wait until swing back starts to come into play from these dog days of mid term. Only a 19% lead over Corbyn is mildly embarrassing, a bit like England winning that ODI by less than 200 runs.
They'll party like it's 1931. It's extraordinary to think that the Conservatives are now further ahead than 1983 or 1935.
As someone who will end up paying the full whack over the next 2 years I remain pretty sanguine about the NICs changes. Class 2 contributions are an anachronism from some forgotten time and clearly need to be abolished. The fact that this means the majority of the self employed will be paying less is fine because it helps those on low earnings who do not benefit from living wage increases. Over time I agree that the tax system should aim towards neutrality rather than incentivising one system of employment over another.
I am more concerned about having a strong government ready to face the material challenges ahead who take deficit reduction seriously. A retreat would be a disappointment.
Same here. I'd rather not pay anything more, but it's inevitable that people earning well above average will pay more to close the deficit.
As has been noted all parties break manifesto promises. They will eventually be punished if they do it too much or too lightly, but it can be the best option and that parties can do it and win shows the public can understand that even if will short term lead to criticism (but you get mocked for proposing it even if you u turn).
Initial indications are that despite media salivation over a genuine breaking of a promise which does hit people with more tax, the public support the measure, so ptobably the criticism can be dealt with.Unless we're raising the money somehow else, or not spending more on something else, the proposal should stand, or may is saying either the policy, which the public support, is terrible and was a mistake on her part or that the extra spend is not needed.
And there are people even here (not many I know) that support Trump - Jeez!
He sounds like a very sensible man.
Lol
He like you is a right-wing ignorant moron!
You mustn't compound the fact that you have not the first idea about how science works, by being offensive. The question put to Pruitt was nonsensical: "Mr Pruitt, a lawyer, was asked if he thought it had been proven that carbon dioxide was the “primary control knob for climate”. The answer to that question is, no - on any view at all. We have no idea whether tweaking CO2 will have any real effect on climate change, even if we accept the basic AGW thesis.
It is not your fault that you are thick and poorly educated and have no idea how science works, and I would not usually dream of pointing out those facts; but you really should not call people "morons" and "fruitcakes". Here is a link to a paper by a moronic fruitcake who seriously entertains the notion that "The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue". The moronic fruitcake is editor-in-chief of the Lancet, of which you may have heard. His remarks are not confined to medical science, and in any case medical science is much, much easier than climate science because medical science can look at millions and millions of examples of the system they are studying, and climate scientists only have the one; and the incentives to arrive at a pre-ordained result are at least as strong in climate science as in medicine.
Would this be the same Lancet that published Andrew Wakefield's nonsense about MMR? Perhaps the editor should focus on good peer review closer to home.
Mr. F, I do wonder how abolishing NI contributions from the lowest earning self-employed works regarding the state pension, for which a certain number of years contributing NI is necessary to get the full whack.
In the sense of going from no NI rise to a rise, yes, its a 180 turn , although the actual impact dpes not seem to be huge. Currently the public broadly seem to accept the trade off proposed, and with a big lead and no early election, no better time for the government to make a tough choice.
If Hammond really wanted to target rich self employed people, the obvious thing to have done would have been to raise the 2% NICs rate that applies above the LEL and leave the lower rate as is.
Can I just clarify something here - and I don't wish to intrude too much on the personal circumstances of others but isn't being a solicitor a 'reasonably secure' job... ? However the employment structure (I don't know details of an LLP - you seem to have avoided Brown's swinging increases on "normal Employee/r" NIC, since you're all partners in a firm ?
As has been noted all parties break manifesto promises. They will eventually be punished if they do it too much or too lightly, but it can be the best option and that parties can do it and win shows the public can understand that even if will short term lead to criticism (but you get mocked for proposing it even if you u turn).
Initial indications are that despite media salivation over a genuine breaking of a promise which does hit people with more tax, the public support the measure, so ptobably the criticism can be dealt with.Unless we're raising the money somehow else, or not spending more on something else, the proposal should stand, or may is saying either the policy, which the public support, is terrible and was a mistake on her part or that the extra spend is not needed.
I thought the change was only going to bring in about £150mn net to the Treasury (I could be totally wrong on that)? Hammond finds more than that every time he sits on his sofa!
Cameron’s former No 10 Head of Strategy Ameet Gill is on the record as saying that the only reason they came up with the five-year freeze was to fill a ‘hole in the grid’ — branding it as ‘probably the dumbest economic policy that anyone could make’.
Seems like IFS don't want Hammond to back down, arguing that there will be far more self-employment in a few years time and we need a level tax playing field. Sounds sensible to me.
Mr. F, I do wonder how abolishing NI contributions from the lowest earning self-employed works regarding the state pension, for which a certain number of years contributing NI is necessary to get the full whack.
Cameron’s former No 10 Head of Strategy Ameet Gill is on the record as saying that the only reason they came up with the five-year freeze was to fill a ‘hole in the grid’ — branding it as ‘probably the dumbest economic policy that anyone could make’.
Seems like IFS don't want Hammond to back down, arguing that there will be far more self-employment in a few years time and we need a level tax playing field. Sounds sensible to me.
Yep - this is hardly hitting the start up entrepreneur either, as those earning under £16k will be paying less...
Can I just clarify something here - and I don't wish to intrude too much on the personal circumstances of others but isn't being a solicitor a 'reasonably secure' job... ? However the employment structure (I don't know details of an LLP - you seem to have avoided Brown's swinging increases on "normal Employee/r" NIC, since you're all partners in a firm ?
As has been noted all parties break manifesto promises. They will eventually be punished if they do it too much or too lightly, but it can be the best option and that parties can do it and win shows the public can understand that even if will short term lead to criticism (but you get mocked for proposing it even if you u turn).
Initial indications are that despite media salivation over a genuine breaking of a promise which does hit people with more tax, the public support the measure, so ptobably the criticism can be dealt with.Unless we're raising the money somehow else, or not spending more on something else, the proposal should stand, or may is saying either the policy, which the public support, is terrible and was a mistake on her part or that the extra spend is not needed.
I thought the change was only going to bring in about £150mn net to the Treasury (I could be totally wrong on that)? Hammond finds more than that every time he sits on his sofa!
If it is so little that it can easily be replaced and so obviously bad it must be, that doesn't help may, since it means she and Hammond shouldn't have done it in the first place. They look incompetent if they do that. The question is taking that hit worth it vs taking a hot for breaking a promise. Polling shows people can understand when you do that, so it comes down to whether the anger of those affected or angry at the promise being broken is sufficient to overcome disappointment of those who see may and Hammond as incompetent or afraid to take tough decisions.
It seems the answer will be yes, as is standard. Kicking the can down the road always works.
As has been noted all parties break manifesto promises. They will eventually be punished if they do it too much or too lightly, but it can be the best option and that parties can do it and win shows the public can understand that even if will short term lead to criticism (but you get mocked for proposing it even if you u turn).
Initial indications are that despite media salivation over a genuine breaking of a promise which does hit people with more tax, the public support the measure, so ptobably the criticism can be dealt with.Unless we're raising the money somehow else, or not spending more on something else, the proposal should stand, or may is saying either the policy, which the public support, is terrible and was a mistake on her part or that the extra spend is not needed.
I thought the change was only going to bring in about £150mn net to the Treasury (I could be totally wrong on that)? Hammond finds more than that every time he sits on his sofa!
Not sure of the exact numbers but there is a 1% increase in succeeding years so it will raise a lot more in 2018/19 than this year.
In the sense of going from no NI rise to a rise, yes, its a 180 turn , although the actual impact dpes not seem to be huge. Currently the public broadly seem to accept the trade off proposed, and with a big lead and no early election, no better time for the government to make a tough choice.
Except it sounds like 20 backbenchers don't agree. We are in the slim majority problem territory on this one by sounds of it.
If this happens enough surely even May will get fed up and call an election.
As has been noted all parties break manifesto promises. They will eventually be punished if they do it too much or too lightly, but it can be the best option and that parties can do it and win shows the public can understand that even if will short term lead to criticism (but you get mocked for proposing it even if you u turn).
Initial indications are that despite media salivation over a genuine breaking of a promise which does hit people with more tax, the public support the measure, so ptobably the criticism can be dealt with.Unless we're raising the money somehow else, or not spending more on something else, the proposal should stand, or may is saying either the policy, which the public support, is terrible and was a mistake on her part or that the extra spend is not needed.
I thought the change was only going to bring in about £150mn net to the Treasury (I could be totally wrong on that)? Hammond finds more than that every time he sits on his sofa!
Not sure of the exact numbers but there is a 1% increase in succeeding years so it will raise a lot more in 2018/19 than this year.
I thought it was two 1% raises? And wouldn't the second raise bring in just as much extra per year as the first, unless I'm being super dumb?
Completely O/T but anyone who was brave and bought BT shares in the middle of their dodgy Italians scandal is laughing this morning as Open Reach break out sends price up.
with only 6 weeks till the deadline for the investigation to conclude, Conservative HQ could have some explaining to do.....shame there is not a market for the outcome
Do you ever get the feeling you're talking to yourself?
Have you bothered to look at the polling instead of quoting the rantings of overpaid self-employed journos?
Well naturally, it was hardly surprising that the majority of people who are subject to P.A.Y.E. were only too happy to see the self-employed lot get it in the neck. That follows as night follows day, but in terms of upsetting Tory voters this was a very grave mistake by Hammond and one I doubt he will recover from. Introducing a few clever lines into a budget speech is one thing, but this was quite another.
I'd like to 'get it in the neck' as well by paying NI at 11%.
As has been noted all parties break manifesto promises. They will eventually be punished if they do it too much or too lightly, but it can be the best option and that parties can do it and win shows the public can understand that even if will short term lead to criticism (but you get mocked for proposing it even if you u turn).
Initial indications are that despite media salivation over a genuine breaking of a promise which does hit people with more tax, the public support the measure, so ptobably the criticism can be dealt with.Unless we're raising the money somehow else, or not spending more on something else, the proposal should stand, or may is saying either the policy, which the public support, is terrible and was a mistake on her part or that the extra spend is not needed.
I thought the change was only going to bring in about £150mn net to the Treasury (I could be totally wrong on that)? Hammond finds more than that every time he sits on his sofa!
Not sure of the exact numbers but there is a 1% increase in succeeding years so it will raise a lot more in 2018/19 than this year.
I thought it was two 1% raises? And wouldn't the second raise bring in just as much extra per year as the first, unless I'm being super dumb?
No because there are no additional set off reductions in the second year. The first year the 1% is net of the class 2 abolition. The second year it is gross.
As has been noted all parties break manifesto promises. They will eventually be punished if they do it too much or too lightly, but it can be the best option and that parties can do it and win shows the public can understand that even if will short term lead to criticism (but you get mocked for proposing it even if you u turn).
Initial indications are that despite media salivation over a genuine breaking of a promise which does hit people with more tax, the public support the measure, so ptobably the criticism can be dealt with.Unless we're raising the money somehow else, or not spending more on something else, the proposal should stand, or may is saying either the policy, which the public support, is terrible and was a mistake on her part or that the extra spend is not needed.
I thought the change was only going to bring in about £150mn net to the Treasury (I could be totally wrong on that)? Hammond finds more than that every time he sits on his sofa!
Not sure of the exact numbers but there is a 1% increase in succeeding years so it will raise a lot more in 2018/19 than this year.
I thought it was two 1% raises? And wouldn't the second raise bring in just as much extra per year as the first, unless I'm being super dumb?
No because there are no additional set off reductions in the second year. The first year the 1% is net of the class 2 abolition. The second year it is gross.
The independent who stood before must have been hoovering up the LibDem NOTA vote....
I think that's fairly unlikely. Independents in West Oxfordshire tend to be Conservative under a different name, of the "slightly irascible old buffer" type (at least one of the leading Conservatives on WODC was formerly an independent and I don't think he's changed his views!).
The seat won last night adjoins the Lib Dems' heartland in the district (Charlbury & Finstock). Quite possible that there'll be a few more scalps lost in the May county elections.
On a different note: there seems to be a meme in the last few days that opposition to the NIC rise has been whipped-up by self-employed newspaper columnists. I'm doubtful about that. Most "self-employed" columnists will actually have their own limited company (a services company) and an accountant to help it run in a tax-minimal manner.
What does affect this group is the drop in the tax-free dividend allowance from £5,000 to £2,000, and the (barely noticed) change in last year's Budget that Employment Allowance no longer applies to such companies with just one employee.
Do you ever get the feeling you're talking to yourself?
Have you bothered to look at the polling instead of quoting the rantings of overpaid self-employed journos?
Well naturally, it was hardly surprising that the majority of people who are subject to P.A.Y.E. were only too happy to see the self-employed lot get it in the neck. That follows as night follows day, but in terms of upsetting Tory voters this was a very grave mistake by Hammond and one I doubt he will recover from. Introducing a few clever lines into a budget speech is one thing, but this was quite another.
I'd like to 'get it in the neck' as well by paying NI at 11%.
My employers would love to "get it in the neck" by avoiding the 13.8% e/r charge as well.
The independent who stood before must have been hoovering up the LibDem NOTA vote....
I think that's fairly unlikely. Independents in West Oxfordshire tend to be Conservative under a different name, of the "slightly irascible old buffer" type (at least one of the leading Conservatives on WODC was formerly an independent and I don't think he's changed his views!).
The seat won last night adjoins the Lib Dems' heartland in the district (Charlbury & Finstock). Quite possible that there'll be a few more scalps lost in the May county elections.
On a different note: there seems to be a meme in the last few days that opposition to the NIC rise has been whipped-up by self-employed newspaper columnists. I'm doubtful about that. Most "self-employed" columnists will actually have their own limited company (a services company) and an accountant to help it run in a tax-minimal manner.
What does affect this group is the drop in the tax-free dividend allowance from £5,000 to £2,000, and the (barely noticed) change in last year's Budget that Employment Allowance no longer applies to such companies with just one employee.
Well, the latter change was closing a ridiculous tax loophole. I'm disappointed Hammond didn't go after the many abuses that single employee "companies" are able to get away with.
Completely O/T but anyone who was brave and bought BT shares in the middle of their dodgy Italians scandal is laughing this morning as Open Reach break out sends price up.
Serious question: is this good for our IT infrastructure in the long term? It contrasts with America where networks are wholly owned by whoever built them and increasingly the infra firms offer their own content. Basically the opposite of what we have here. The budget conjured up £15 million for a 5G hub (whatever that is); meanwhile, the Americans are going ahead with 5G trials in 11 cities.
What the furore really highlights for me is what a pernicious tax employers national insurance is. Taxing someone for employing someone else. It's really nuts and a major driver of all the pretend self employment we have these days with people losing security of employment, sick and holiday pay and maternity rights as a result. Employers NI is evil and getting rid of it would address a range of issues.
Cameron’s former No 10 Head of Strategy Ameet Gill is on the record as saying that the only reason they came up with the five-year freeze was to fill a ‘hole in the grid’ — branding it as ‘probably the dumbest economic policy that anyone could make’.
Do you ever get the feeling you're talking to yourself?
Have you bothered to look at the polling instead of quoting the rantings of overpaid self-employed journos?
Well naturally, it was hardly surprising that the majority of people who are subject to P.A.Y.E. were only too happy to see the self-employed lot get it in the neck. That follows as night follows day, but in terms of upsetting Tory voters this was a very grave mistake by Hammond and one I doubt he will recover from. Introducing a few clever lines into a budget speech is one thing, but this was quite another.
I'd like to 'get it in the neck' as well by paying NI at 11%.
My employers would love to "get it in the neck" by avoiding the 13.8% e/r charge as well.
And without employers NI they could give you maybe a 10% pay rise.
Just realised that for the common or garden 'basic rate' employee, the actual real marginal tax rate of employment between the personal allowance and 43,000 is actually 45.8%.
Higher rate is 55.8% marginal rate, with 150k+ at 61.8%.
Mr. F, I do wonder how abolishing NI contributions from the lowest earning self-employed works regarding the state pension, for which a certain number of years contributing NI is necessary to get the full whack.
I haven't got a clue about pensions, I'm afraid.
There are plans/consultation on a new zero-rate Class 4 NIC band which people on low incomes wont pay NI but will accrue credits for state pension iirc.
Completely O/T but anyone who was brave and bought BT shares in the middle of their dodgy Italians scandal is laughing this morning as Open Reach break out sends price up.
Serious question: is this good for our IT infrastructure in the long term? It contrasts with America where networks are wholly owned by whoever built them and increasingly the infra firms offer their own content. Basically the opposite of what we have here. The budget conjured up £15 million for a 5G hub (whatever that is); meanwhile, the Americans are going ahead with 5G trials in 11 cities.
5G is wireless, while OpenReach (vs US cable) is wired.
Samsung is doing a 5G trial in the UK, although I'm buggered if I can remember where. If you Google you can probably find it.
The big difference between the US wired networks and ours is simply that in the US they are much happier to string cables up in the air and between houses. If you get cable in the UK, they have to dig a trench to your home. In the US, it'll usually go along cables above your head. Not having to dig up roads makes roll outs a lot cheaper.
But the important thing is not to break a manifesto commitment that involves journalists and editors. Clearly NICs as got the gander up for your freelancing commentators and journos.
Cameron broke loads of pledges - deficit gone by 2015 ? the LDs brought in Uni fees Blairs Labour - where do you start ?
this is westminster bubble stuff, most of the electorate dont care
if you actually think that a) most people read manifestos and b) voters believe policiticans then youve lost the plot Max.
The Lib Dems who lost their seats might disagree but you are generally right about the Westminster bubble. What you miss is that the importance of that bubble in the shape of backbench support for Theresa May and her government. Theresa May was supposed to be different from Cameron. Now, this morning there are signs the Prime Minister understands that even if some Tory spinners on here have not yet caught up.
It's not just tories who think breaking the pledge should be done, if she thinks circumstances have changed to the point it is now necessary. May isn't supposed to be different either, her pitch was about competency as I recall, and toughness, and If she thought it was a good move she should stick to it and if she doesn't shes not as tough as we are told. If she suddenly realises it is not a good move then her competence is not as high as we are told as why was it in there in the first place?
Theresa May is supposed to be different in that she is a genuine grass-roots Conservative who understood the party in the country, unlike the socially exclusive Cameroons.
Completely O/T but anyone who was brave and bought BT shares in the middle of their dodgy Italians scandal is laughing this morning as Open Reach break out sends price up.
Serious question: is this good for our IT infrastructure in the long term? It contrasts with America where networks are wholly owned by whoever built them and increasingly the infra firms offer their own content. Basically the opposite of what we have here. The budget conjured up £15 million for a 5G hub (whatever that is); meanwhile, the Americans are going ahead with 5G trials in 11 cities.
5G is wireless, while OpenReach (vs US cable) is wired.
Samsung is doing a 5G trial in the UK, although I'm buggered if I can remember where. If you Google you can probably find it.
The big difference between the US wired networks and ours is simply that in the US they are much happier to string cables up in the air and between houses. If you get cable in the UK, they have to dig a trench to your home. In the US, it'll usually go along cables above your head. Not having to dig up roads makes roll outs a lot cheaper.
The argument (OfCom's) is that a separate Openreach will be more responsive to a range of customers and not just its parent - so Vodafone, Sky etc will get more of a look-in on infrastructure developments. I suspect if that doesn't happen then the whole thing will be looked at again in a few years time. But BT have bought breathing space.
Completely O/T but anyone who was brave and bought BT shares in the middle of their dodgy Italians scandal is laughing this morning as Open Reach break out sends price up.
Serious question: is this good for our IT infrastructure in the long term? It contrasts with America where networks are wholly owned by whoever built them and increasingly the infra firms offer their own content. Basically the opposite of what we have here. The budget conjured up £15 million for a 5G hub (whatever that is); meanwhile, the Americans are going ahead with 5G trials in 11 cities.
5G is wireless, while OpenReach (vs US cable) is wired.
Samsung is doing a 5G trial in the UK, although I'm buggered if I can remember where. If you Google you can probably find it.
The big difference between the US wired networks and ours is simply that in the US they are much happier to string cables up in the air and between houses. If you get cable in the UK, they have to dig a trench to your home. In the US, it'll usually go along cables above your head. Not having to dig up roads makes roll outs a lot cheaper.
5G is wireless but depends on a cabled infrastructure. But the point was more about economics: because the Americans tolerate market distortions and local monopolies (not to mention protectionism and hidden subsidies) their companies are more able to invest in new technology and expand overseas.
So is it better to break up BT and enable more competition but at a smaller scale, or let it grow and invest?
Can I just clarify something here - and I don't wish to intrude too much on the personal circumstances of others but isn't being a solicitor a 'reasonably secure' job... ? However the employment structure (I don't know details of an LLP - you seem to have avoided Brown's swinging increases on "normal Employee/r" NIC, since you're all partners in a firm ?
An equity partner is treated as self-employed.
And following the changes of a couple of years ago, all partners (at least in the better firms) contribute equity. Salaried partners, well that's a different story. Firms obfuscate on this because they want to maintain partner level rates regardless of internal structure.
Get rid of the utterly useless Jezza and McIRA and replace them with Nandy and Chuka and the game changes, almost overnight.
Agreed. Labour have very powerful foundations, spread throughout the country. Brexit has lost them some WWC. Tories have got their Brexiteers back from UKIP. But Labour, sadly, will survive ruining the country as ever.
Mrs May's Tories now have a 5% bigger lead over Corbyn Labour than Thatcher's Tories had over Foot Labour in 1983 if that poll is correct, if there was an election tomorrow she would slaughter Labour
Not quite. The Tory lead in 1983 was 15.2% in GB - Con 43.5% Lab 28.3%
Depends which figures you look at but whichever you take it is still a comfortably bigger lead for May over Corbyn than Thatcher had over Foot on tonight's poll
and weren't the SDP in the polls too at this time holding back Foot? Corbyn is the worse leader, mainly because he isn't a leader. More power to him!
F1: murmuring in the live feed that Stroll is a few tenths off Massa. If accurate, and I'd want confirmation before taking it as read, it'd be a same and suggest his cash is not so much a bonus as the foundation of his presence in the sport.
Comments
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/03/ifs-throws-philip-hammond-lifeline/
Just a few minutes until the last day's testing begins.
Initial indications are that despite media salivation over a genuine breaking of a promise which does hit people with more tax, the public support the measure, so ptobably the criticism can be dealt with.Unless we're raising the money somehow else, or not spending more on something else, the proposal should stand, or may is saying either the policy, which the public support, is terrible and was a mistake on her part or that the extra spend is not needed.
However the employment structure (I don't know details of an LLP - you seem to have avoided Brown's swinging increases on "normal Employee/r" NIC, since you're all partners in a firm ?
It seems the answer will be yes, as is standard. Kicking the can down the road always works.
If this happens enough surely even May will get fed up and call an election.
Two members of a Conservative campaigning “hit squad” in the 2015 election tell Channel 4 News the party “cheated” by not properly declaring its election spending.
https://www.channel4.com/news/tory-whistleblowers-election-expenses-conservative-party-battlebus
"We need to have a proper mandate ... "
The seat won last night adjoins the Lib Dems' heartland in the district (Charlbury & Finstock). Quite possible that there'll be a few more scalps lost in the May county elections.
On a different note: there seems to be a meme in the last few days that opposition to the NIC rise has been whipped-up by self-employed newspaper columnists. I'm doubtful about that. Most "self-employed" columnists will actually have their own limited company (a services company) and an accountant to help it run in a tax-minimal manner.
What does affect this group is the drop in the tax-free dividend allowance from £5,000 to £2,000, and the (barely noticed) change in last year's Budget that Employment Allowance no longer applies to such companies with just one employee.
My employers would love to "get it in the neck" by avoiding the 13.8% e/r charge as well.
And without employers NI they could give you maybe a 10% pay rise.
Higher rate is 55.8% marginal rate, with 150k+ at 61.8%.
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/consultation-on-abolishing-class-2-national-insurance-and-introducing-a-contributory-benefit-test-to-class-4-national-insurance-for-the-self-employed/the-abolition-of-class-2-national-insurance-introducing-a-benefit-test-into-class-4-national-insurance-for-the-self-employed
Britain under Cameron and May is as corrupt and disfunctional as Italy and Greece, or Trump`s America. Discuss.
Samsung is doing a 5G trial in the UK, although I'm buggered if I can remember where. If you Google you can probably find it.
The big difference between the US wired networks and ours is simply that in the US they are much happier to string cables up in the air and between houses. If you get cable in the UK, they have to dig a trench to your home. In the US, it'll usually go along cables above your head. Not having to dig up roads makes roll outs a lot cheaper.
So is it better to break up BT and enable more competition but at a smaller scale, or let it grow and invest?