Re Lib Dems - they took a couple of seats off Tories in Oxfordshire last night, yet vote was down in that Derby seat, but there doesn't seem to be much upward movement on You Gov. They don't appear to be able to break above 10%, Farron is touted as a good organiser, but if LDs gains are small at locals, will he be turfed out, or are there no viable alternatives?
The Lib Dems should do well in May in places like Surrey, South Cambridgeshire, and the M3 and M4 corridors. Anywhere that there was a big middle class Remain vote. They'll struggle in working class areas and areas that had a big Leave vote. They should come out of the elections with a reasonable net gain.
I think that's absolutely right. I think they'll manage a high teens NEV share, and pass UKIP. (Who, I suspect, will see their share halve and lose most of their councillors.)
It is worth remembering with the LDs that although they saw their vote share hammered in 2013, they actually saw only very modest losses of councillors, and and actually made gains in some places. For this reason, I suspect that their gains will be quite limited: perhaps 50-100 net gains across the country.
From a LibDem Watch point of view, next year (assuming there isn't a General Election in the interim) will be much more interesting, as that's when the London boroughs have their elections. Will the LD resurgence come through in Richmond and Kingston - where losing the council presaged the loss of local MPs?
If we believe Mike all these centre left voters are looking for somewhere to go. The Lib Dems are there with open arms. And yet the party can't beat Nutalls UKIP.
If they can't prosper now, will they ever prosper?
Its still or is its still possible that a new Social democrat party will emerge from the wreckage?
How many times has it been proved that the vast majority of the PLP have no spine. They went for Corbyn once and failed. How could they have screwed that up.....
The 25% Labour floor of vote share is looking rather fragile, Jeremy needs another relaunch.
Its an interesting question what the floor is. Nor sure how much support is actually the die hard loony left, but I think 19% might be rock bottom. (of course at 25% it might in reality only be 22%)
If we believe Mike all these centre left voters are looking for somewhere to go. The Lib Dems are there with open arms. And yet the party can't beat Nutalls UKIP.
If they can't prosper now, will they ever prosper?
Voters are attracted or repulsed by leaders. No one knows who the Lib Dem leader is.
He needs a scandal urgently
It could be the making of him, and Paddy Pantsdown proved that a scandal was not harmful even in the short term.
":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."
I would suggest exactly the opposite. The problem is that employers want a well educated and healthy workforce but are not willing to pay for it. It is the same problem as we have with employers wanting to.import labour from overseas and then wash their hands of them when they are no longer needed.
If anything we need to extend employers NI contributions. Make the end user companies of self employed or consultants directly responsible for paying the NI just as they do with staff. Bear in mind that once Hammond's SE NI increases are passed, as I am sure they will be, SE NI rates will only be 1% less than PAYE for employees but the employers will still be paying nothing.
Ever wonder why there is such a drive towards automation when employers are punished time and again for offering employment?
If I purchase a machine to do a job then I can reclaim any VAT that was spent on purchasing it, so essentially only owe VAT on marginal profit. There are no further major on-going taxes I can think of.
If I hire a person to do the same job then I owe: wages, employers National Insurance, pension contributions, essentially VAT on the wages too, on top of potentially six months of sick pay, etc, etc, etc
Even if a person is economically more efficient than a machine the tax system penalises employment so much what incentive is there to not go for a machine if possible?
Of course companies should go whichever route is most cost effective for them. But if they are going to employ workers then they take on responsibility for them - particularly if as is the case they are intent on importing their workforce from overseas. If that is the case then they should be held responsible for the needs of those employees for as long as they remain in the country. Of course this is a slightly different issue to NI but the basic principle remains. If companies will not volunteer corporate responsibility they should be made to through the tax system.
Re Lib Dems - they took a couple of seats off Tories in Oxfordshire last night, yet vote was down in that Derby seat, but there doesn't seem to be much upward movement on You Gov. They don't appear to be able to break above 10%, Farron is touted as a good organiser, but if LDs gains are small at locals, will he be turfed out, or are there no viable alternatives?
The Lib Dems should do well in May in places like Surrey, South Cambridgeshire, and the M3 and M4 corridors. Anywhere that there was a big middle class Remain vote. They'll struggle in working class areas and areas that had a big Leave vote. They should come out of the elections with a reasonable net gain.
I think that's absolutely right. I think they'll manage a high teens NEV share, and pass UKIP. (Who, I suspect, will see their share halve and lose most of their councillors.)
It is worth remembering with the LDs that although they saw their vote share hammered in 2013, they actually saw only very modest losses of councillors, and and actually made gains in some places. For this reason, I suspect that their gains will be quite limited: perhaps 50-100 net gains across the country.
From a LibDem Watch point of view, next year (assuming there isn't a General Election in the interim) will be much more interesting, as that's when the London boroughs have their elections. Will the LD resurgence come through in Richmond and Kingston - where losing the council presaged the loss of local MPs?
Although I'd incline to agree, it is nevertheless remarkable that the LibDems have chalked up some impressive local by-election results in Leave areas also, including Sunderland and Rotherham (the latter their first ever councillor elected there).
London is the interesting one - so far there is less evidence that it is following the rest of the country away from Labour, despite its strong remain vote.
Re Lib Dems - they took a couple of seats off Tories in Oxfordshire last night, yet vote was down in that Derby seat, but there doesn't seem to be much upward movement on You Gov. They don't appear to be able to break above 10%, Farron is touted as a good organiser, but if LDs gains are small at locals, will he be turfed out, or are there no viable alternatives?
The Lib Dems should do well in May in places like Surrey, South Cambridgeshire, and the M3 and M4 corridors. Anywhere that there was a big middle class Remain vote. They'll struggle in working class areas and areas that had a big Leave vote. They should come out of the elections with a reasonable net gain.
I think that's absolutely right. I think they'll manage a high teens NEV share, and pass UKIP. (Who, I suspect, will see their share halve and lose most of their councillors.)
It is worth remembering with the LDs that although they saw their vote share hammered in 2013, they actually saw only very modest losses of councillors, and and actually made gains in some places. For this reason, I suspect that their gains will be quite limited: perhaps 50-100 net gains across the country.
From a LibDem Watch point of view, next year (assuming there isn't a General Election in the interim) will be much more interesting, as that's when the London boroughs have their elections. Will the LD resurgence come through in Richmond and Kingston - where losing the council presaged the loss of local MPs?
Can they also come back in Camden, Islington, and Hornsey & Wood Green, as the party of Remain (probably yes, IMO).
Metro reports on a dominatrix in Plymouth called 'Mistress Magpie' who says she will be hit hard by NIC changes and plans to stand as a Labour councillor
If on local election night these two results are declared:
Derbyshire CON gain from LAB
Nottinghamshire CON gain from LAB
Can Corbyn survive ?
His membership don't care about winning. But I think I know what it would take for the members to turn, it would have to be a big loss to ukip. If they lost Stoke he would have to go. The SWJ class in labour don't like Tories but absolutley CANNOT STAND UKIP. They even complained about using the England flag on a leaflet in Stoke. They believe UKIP are the far-right and a defeat to them is unforgivable.
Atleast thats my sense from twitter where a dispropotionate number of them spend their time. That is THE only time I have heard them be flaky on him. The only one.
Excuse the vulgarity but there must come a time when Corbyn realizes he's the t***in the U-bend and for the fragrent running of our democracy as he can't be flushed out by his colleagues he should remove himself.
Corbyn has no interest in: 1. Winning elections 2. Parliament 3. Offering British voters a credible opposition 4. The Labour party His only interest is in advancing the cause of the far left. There is no way on God's earth he will ever stand down voluntarily. That's why it is still going to take a bit more time for him to go. But he will be gone way before 2020.
Interesting, I said to a friend a while back that Corbyn has no interest in power, he's a professional protestor. The problem for Labour is far more serious, when he goes there is nobody remotely capable of becoming PM.
The NIC rise is dead already, May realises she wouldn't get it through parliament. The exit strategy will be interesting as will the future of Hammond.
As for Corbyn it might have to be brought forward the time he moves aside. It could now be this year, who could take over who Lenny would accept. My money will be on Thornberry, although I wouldn't rule the snake Burnham out.
No it is staying Amy's huge poll lead and public support for it ensures that plus the need to fund social care, she has just moved it to the Autumn. Corbyn has said he is staying until 2020
Perhaps reading your own link would be the logical thing to do? It is nonsense: "decimate" in the headline, 11 tory seats at risk in the actual text. "Decimate" depends on the current tory maj being less than 11. So what sort of "future election" are we talking about? If by-election, they generally happen in ones or at most twos, not elevens. If general election, the map is going to turn blue on current trends, and a few traditionally lib seats going the wrong way doesn't matter.
And I have no idea why St Ives is so heavily self-employed (fishing? freelance bed n breakfast cleaning?) but I live within walking distance of Cornwall and I can tell you it is poor - really poor. The NI changes as I understand it (from someone on here) are in favour of those on up to £16,500 p.a. If you apply that filter to St Ives, I am guessing you are left with a number of voters which would fit into one taxi.
Davis also proposing Scotland can take more EU migrants than the rest of the UK as part of a Brexit deal
and how will they be stopped from coming here? A hard border? and if they are caught working in London will they be deported, will the rules even be enforced, i doubt it....they weren't last time. Basically there won't be any significant control on immigration. Oh well if the politicians keep ignoring us we will keep sending them a message untill they get it right.
Excuse the vulgarity but there must come a time when Corbyn realizes he's the t***in the U-bend and for the fragrent running of our democracy as he can't be flushed out by his colleagues he should remove himself.
Corbyn has no interest in: 1. Winning elections 2. Parliament 3. Offering British voters a credible opposition 4. The Labour party His only interest is in advancing the cause of the far left. There is no way on God's earth he will ever stand down voluntarily. That's why it is still going to take a bit more time for him to go. But he will be gone way before 2020.
Interesting, I said to a friend a while back that Corbyn has no interest in power, he's a professional protestor. The problem for Labour is far more serious, when he goes there is nobody remotely capable of becoming PM.
+1
even those few bigger hitter they have won't have seen front-line politics for some years, having sat out Corbyn's tenure on the back benches, rather than build a base and demonstrate their capabilities on the front bench.
Re Lib Dems - they took a couple of seats off Tories in Oxfordshire last night, yet vote was down in that Derby seat, but there doesn't seem to be much upward movement on You Gov. They don't appear to be able to break above 10%, Farron is touted as a good organiser, but if LDs gains are small at locals, will he be turfed out, or are there no viable alternatives?
The Lib Dems should do well in May in places like Surrey, South Cambridgeshire, and the M3 and M4 corridors. Anywhere that there was a big middle class Remain vote. They'll struggle in working class areas and areas that had a big Leave vote. They should come out of the elections with a reasonable net gain.
I think that's absolutely right. I think they'll manage a high teens NEV share, and pass UKIP. (Who, I suspect, will see their share halve and lose most of their councillors.)
It is worth remembering with the LDs that although they saw their vote share hammered in 2013, they actually saw only very modest losses of councillors, and and actually made gains in some places. For this reason, I suspect that their gains will be quite limited: perhaps 50-100 net gains across the country.
From a LibDem Watch point of view, next year (assuming there isn't a General Election in the interim) will be much more interesting, as that's when the London boroughs have their elections. Will the LD resurgence come through in Richmond and Kingston - where losing the council presaged the loss of local MPs?
Can they also come back in Camden, Islington, and Hornsey & Wood Green, as the party of Remain (probably yes, IMO).
From a pure personal amusement perspective, I'm looking forward to SeanT ending up in a LibDem ward
Perhaps reading your own link would be the logical thing to do? It is nonsense: "decimate" in the headline, 11 tory seats at risk in the actual text. "Decimate" depends on the current tory maj being less than 11. So what sort of "future election" are we talking about? If by-election, they generally happen in ones or at most twos, not elevens. If general election, the map is going to turn blue on current trends, and a few traditionally lib seats going the wrong way doesn't matter.
And I have no idea why St Ives is so heavily self-employed (fishing? freelance bed n breakfast cleaning?) but I live within walking distance of Cornwall and I can tell you it is poor - really poor. The NI changes as I understand it (from someone on here) are in favour of those on up to £16,500 p.a. If you apply that filter to St Ives, I am guessing you are left with a number of voters which would fit into one taxi.
Off topic, but I would appreciate it if anybody can shed any light on this puzzler
Was David Cameron's pre referendum renegotiation package go to a House of Commons vote before it could be presented to the country? Would it have if Remain had won?
I don't think so. As if it didn't fundamentally change any rights/laws, then it wouldn't need to.
If we believe Mike all these centre left voters are looking for somewhere to go. The Lib Dems are there with open arms. And yet the party can't beat Nutalls UKIP.
If they can't prosper now, will they ever prosper?
Voters are attracted or repulsed by leaders. No one knows who the Lib Dem leader is.
He needs a scandal urgently
It could be the making of him, and Paddy Pantsdown proved that a scandal was not harmful even in the short term.
He could always do a 'Mark Oaten' if he's got the stomach for it.
Metro reports on a dominatrix in Plymouth called 'Mistress Magpie' who says she will be hit hard by NIC changes and plans to stand as a Labour councillor
Ignore she has any experience around the dockside she might be of great help for labour in 2020.
All recent polls now suggest Rutte leads Wilders in the Netherlands.
This is ahead of two debates next week where for the first time both men will feature.
Equally the PVV's polling has not always translated into seats, outperforming significantly in 2010 then underperforming in 2012.
According to polling the general trend is (a) a move right coupled with (b) the collapse of the Labour Party, whose votes are being redistributed elsewhere.
Ever wonder why there is such a drive towards automation when employers are punished time and again for offering employment?
If I purchase a machine to do a job then I can reclaim any VAT that was spent on purchasing it, so essentially only owe VAT on marginal profit. There are no further major on-going taxes I can think of.
If I hire a person to do the same job then I owe: wages, employers National Insurance, pension contributions, essentially VAT on the wages too, on top of potentially six months of sick pay, etc, etc, etc
Even if a person is economically more efficient than a machine the tax system penalises employment so much what incentive is there to not go for a machine if possible?
Of course companies should go whichever route is most cost effective for them. But if they are going to employ workers then they take on responsibility for them - particularly if as is the case they are intent on importing their workforce from overseas. If that is the case then they should be held responsible for the needs of those employees for as long as they remain in the country. Of course this is a slightly different issue to NI but the basic principle remains. If companies will not volunteer corporate responsibility they should be made to through the tax system.
Most employees don't come from overseas. I've been an employer for over a decade and have never hired anyone direct from overseas. I have however hired people straight from the dole - relieving the taxpayer from having to pay for them - and getting penalised by taxes on top of taxes for having done so.
I have always thought that the security and self-respect from having a job was a good thing.
I don't understand why an employer offering struggling people jobs is something that should be penalised and discouraged through the tax system.
Perhaps reading your own link would be the logical thing to do? It is nonsense: "decimate" in the headline, 11 tory seats at risk in the actual text. "Decimate" depends on the current tory maj being less than 11. So what sort of "future election" are we talking about? If by-election, they generally happen in ones or at most twos, not elevens. If general election, the map is going to turn blue on current trends, and a few traditionally lib seats going the wrong way doesn't matter.
And I have no idea why St Ives is so heavily self-employed (fishing? freelance bed n breakfast cleaning?) but I live within walking distance of Cornwall and I can tell you it is poor - really poor. The NI changes as I understand it (from someone on here) are in favour of those on up to £16,500 p.a. If you apply that filter to St Ives, I am guessing you are left with a number of voters which would fit into one taxi.
...you live in John O'Groats?
Yes I was thinking that claim was a bit flexible.
If I started now I could get there for an early lunch.
All recent polls now suggest Rutte leads Wilders in the Netherlands.
This is ahead of two debates next week where for the first time both men will feature.
Equally the PVV's polling has not always translated into seats, outperforming significantly in 2010 then underperforming in 2012.
According to polling the general trend is (a) a move right coupled with (b) the collapse of the Labour Party, whose votes are being redistributed elsewhere.
I see Rutte gave May a rather passionate embrace at the EU Summit yesterday, make of that what you will!
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.
There was a time when Us domestic internet access shamed the UK. Now, due to the monopolistic practices of its providers US domestic internet access is a cesspit. They were given billions in handouts to roll out fibre networks across the US and just handed he money straight to the shareholders instead.
And part of the motivation for 5G is to avoid the expense of last-mile cabling. Ironically, the need for fiber backhaul has meant a reverse-ferret on the value of cable backbones and the wonders of densification.
Metro reports on a dominatrix in Plymouth called 'Mistress Magpie' who says she will be hit hard by NIC changes and plans to stand as a Labour councillor
Ignore she has any experience around the dockside she might be of great help for labour in 2020.
Yes and sounds rather more entrepreneurial than Jezza
Metro reports on a dominatrix in Plymouth called 'Mistress Magpie' who says she will be hit hard by NIC changes and plans to stand as a Labour councillor
Perhaps reading your own link would be the logical thing to do? It is nonsense: "decimate" in the headline, 11 tory seats at risk in the actual text. "Decimate" depends on the current tory maj being less than 11. So what sort of "future election" are we talking about? If by-election, they generally happen in ones or at most twos, not elevens. If general election, the map is going to turn blue on current trends, and a few traditionally lib seats going the wrong way doesn't matter.
And I have no idea why St Ives is so heavily self-employed (fishing? freelance bed n breakfast cleaning?) but I live within walking distance of Cornwall and I can tell you it is poor - really poor. The NI changes as I understand it (from someone on here) are in favour of those on up to £16,500 p.a. If you apply that filter to St Ives, I am guessing you are left with a number of voters which would fit into one taxi.
Well of course I read the article in the link. If you'd read it you would notice that the eleven seats they mention all had majorities under 10% (some well under) and self employed percentages above 20% (some well over). They were just showing the constituencies that made the point most graphically. Tories used to be in favour of small businesses calling them the 'engine' of the economy, the raising of NI will slow that engine and help convince voters that the Tories are no longer the party of small businesses.
The "Diehard Leavers" come across as verging on xenophobic or possibly monomanics. They will endure anything to keep foreigners out. Sovereignty is just a method of keeping the foreigners out.
The "Diehard Remainers" come across as needing counselling for depression.
As usual, the bulk of people are in the middle. It is interesting that even the Diehard Leavers think we have no better than a 50/50 chance of a good deal. All other groups think our chances of a deal are worse.
Where would I place myself on their continuum? For years I was a reluctant "Better Off Out" but when the referendum started to become a reality I looked at the economics and shifted from Reluctant Leaver to Reluctant Remainer, but it was the emergence of intolerance towards people who have done nothing other than to come here and help and contribute that pushed me firmly into the Remain camp.
If you had told me 5 years ago that I would be a Remainer I would never have believed it
If we believe Mike all these centre left voters are looking for somewhere to go. The Lib Dems are there with open arms. And yet the party can't beat Nutalls UKIP.
If they can't prosper now, will they ever prosper?
Its still or is its still possible that a new Social democrat party will emerge from the wreckage?
How many times has it been proved that the vast majority of the PLP have no spine. They went for Corbyn once and failed. How could they have screwed that up.....
To be fair to the PLP, with any other party, coordinated mass resignations and a vote of no confidence would have removed their party leader. However, due to an odd mix of party rules and a brazenly stubborn Jeremy, all their effort came to naught.
Davis also proposing Scotland can take more EU migrants than the rest of the UK as part of a Brexit deal
and how will they be stopped from coming here? A hard border? and if they are caught working in London will they be deported, will the rules even be enforced, i doubt it....they weren't last time. Basically there won't be any significant control on immigration. Oh well if the politicians keep ignoring us we will keep sending them a message untill they get it right.
Who knows maybe though Davis is clearly beginning to play the SNP at their own game, you can stay in parts of the single market as long as you take the extra migrants that go with it
Is this a stupid question? 'Why can't Chancellors predict the obvious backlash and political grief that will come from the budget measures they make?' It's as if there is nobody with a functional political antenna at the Treasury. Hammond, Ozzy, Gordo, Darling - they all suffered this. Que passa?
Perhaps reading your own link would be the logical thing to do? It is nonsense: "decimate" in the headline, 11 tory seats at risk in the actual text. "Decimate" depends on the current tory maj being less than 11. So what sort of "future election" are we talking about? If by-election, they generally happen in ones or at most twos, not elevens. If general election, the map is going to turn blue on current trends, and a few traditionally lib seats going the wrong way doesn't matter.
And I have no idea why St Ives is so heavily self-employed (fishing? freelance bed n breakfast cleaning?) but I live within walking distance of Cornwall and I can tell you it is poor - really poor. The NI changes as I understand it (from someone on here) are in favour of those on up to £16,500 p.a. If you apply that filter to St Ives, I am guessing you are left with a number of voters which would fit into one taxi.
Well of course I read the article in the link. If you'd read it you would notice that the eleven seats they mention all had majorities under 10% (some well under) and self employed percentages above 20% (some well over). They were just showing the constituencies that made the point most graphically. Tories used to be in favour of small businesses calling them the 'engine' of the economy, the raising of NI will slow that engine and help convince voters that the Tories are no longer the party of small businesses.
What we need is a figure, not just for self-employed, but for self-employed and over/under £16500 turnover. I think people have a false mental picture of the standard self-employed person as a potential next bill gates. Whereas actually if you do seasonal freelance bnb cleaning you have to be self-employed.
Perhaps reading your own link would be the logical thing to do? It is nonsense: "decimate" in the headline, 11 tory seats at risk in the actual text. "Decimate" depends on the current tory maj being less than 11. So what sort of "future election" are we talking about? If by-election, they generally happen in ones or at most twos, not elevens. If general election, the map is going to turn blue on current trends, and a few traditionally lib seats going the wrong way doesn't matter.
And I have no idea why St Ives is so heavily self-employed (fishing? freelance bed n breakfast cleaning?) but I live within walking distance of Cornwall and I can tell you it is poor - really poor. The NI changes as I understand it (from someone on here) are in favour of those on up to £16,500 p.a. If you apply that filter to St Ives, I am guessing you are left with a number of voters which would fit into one taxi.
Well of course I read the article in the link. If you'd read it you would notice that the eleven seats they mention all had majorities under 10% (some well under) and self employed percentages above 20% (some well over). They were just showing the constituencies that made the point most graphically. Tories used to be in favour of small businesses calling them the 'engine' of the economy, the raising of NI will slow that engine and help convince voters that the Tories are no longer the party of small businesses.
No longer the party of giving preferential treatment on NI to the self employed, no
Ever wonder why there is such a drive towards automation when employers are punished time and again for offering employment?
If I purchase a machine to do a job then I can reclaim any VAT that was spent on purchasing it, so essentially only owe VAT on marginal profit. There are no further major on-going taxes I can think of.
If I hire a person to do the same job then I owe: wages, employers National Insurance, pension contributions, essentially VAT on the wages too, on top of potentially six months of sick pay, etc, etc, etc
Even if a person is economically more efficient than a machine the tax system penalises employment so much what incentive is there to not go for a machine if possible?
Of course companies should go whichever route is most cost effective for them. But if they are going to employ workers then they take on responsibility for them - particularly if as is the case they are intent on importing their workforce from overseas. If that is the case then they should be held responsible for the needs of those employees for as long as they remain in the country. Of course this is a slightly different issue to NI but the basic principle remains. If companies will not volunteer corporate responsibility they should be made to through the tax system.
Most employees don't come from overseas. I've been an employer for over a decade and have never hired anyone direct from overseas. I have however hired people straight from the dole - relieving the taxpayer from having to pay for them - and getting penalised by taxes on top of taxes for having done so.
I have always thought that the security and self-respect from having a job was a good thing.
I don't understand why an employer offering struggling people jobs is something that should be penalised and discouraged through the tax system.
My brother is self employed currently, I hear his business is doing reasonably well - and actually I think he has it in NI/tax terms quite 'cushty'.
Should he ever wish to hire someone however - well that is truly where all the extra crippling costs come in as you say. The step change from Self employed to employer is far far too high.
Six Nations: just backed Ireland to beat Wales by 10 points or more at 3.25 (Ladbrokes).
Ireland have looked more impressive so far. They're favourites to win at 1.61, and I think they stand a pretty good chance, maybe evens, of doing so by a double digit margin.
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? Do we want cheaper low-speed networks now or high-speed networks soon?
In the old days, companies like BT and AT&T would do their own research, have their own labs, and make their own equipment.
That's not the case anymore. Nowadays all the hard work is done by the equipment vendors, particularly Ericsson, Huaewei, Nokia, ZTE and Cisco.
Whether BT is broken up or not makes very little difference to their ability to invest: whether you buy one DSLAM/CMTS or 10,000 doesn't change the price that much. (Hence the fact that some villages have grouped together and bought their own gigabit ethernet connections.)
As a project leader for one of those villages, and having laid 50km of fibre optic cables to connect every part of our very rural, Yorkshire Dales parish with Gigabit, symmetrical broadband I feel qualified to explain the parlous state of our fibre infrastructure in two word: Ed and Vaizey
Ever wonder why there is such a drive towards automation when employers are punished time and again for offering employment?
If I purchase a machine to do a job then I can reclaim any VAT that was spent on purchasing it, so essentially only owe VAT on marginal profit. There are no further major on-going taxes I can think of.
If I hire a person to do the same job then I owe: wages, employers National Insurance, pension contributions, essentially VAT on the wages too, on top of potentially six months of sick pay, etc, etc, etc
Even if a person is economically more efficient than a machine the tax system penalises employment so much what incentive is there to not go for a machine if possible?
Of course companies should go whichever route is most cost effective for them. But if they are going to employ workers then they take on responsibility for them - particularly if as is the case they are intent on importing their workforce from overseas. If that is the case then they should be held responsible for the needs of those employees for as long as they remain in the country. Of course this is a slightly different issue to NI but the basic principle remains. If companies will not volunteer corporate responsibility they should be made to through the tax system.
Most employees don't come from overseas. I've been an employer for over a decade and have never hired anyone direct from overseas. I have however hired people straight from the dole - relieving the taxpayer from having to pay for them - and getting penalised by taxes on top of taxes for having done so.
I have always thought that the security and self-respect from having a job was a good thing.
I don't understand why an employer offering struggling people jobs is something that should be penalised and discouraged through the tax system.
According to the ONS in November last year 95% of the growth in employment in the previous year had been filled by workers not born in Britain. Now I don't have a problem with that as long as the employers take full responsibility for the welfare costs of those workers not only as long as they are emptying them but until they either leave the country or get another job rather than expecting the taxpayer to do so.
Ever wonder why there is such a drive towards automation when employers are punished time and again for offering employment?
If I purchase a machine to do a job then I can reclaim any VAT that was spent on purchasing it, so essentially only owe VAT on marginal profit. There are no further major on-going taxes I can think of.
If I hire a person to do the same job then I owe: wages, employers National Insurance, pension contributions, essentially VAT on the wages too, on top of potentially six months of sick pay, etc, etc, etc
Even if a person is economically more efficient than a machine the tax system penalises employment so much what incentive is there to not go for a machine if possible?
Of course companies should go whichever route is most cost effective for them. But if they are going to employ workers then they take on responsibility for them - particularly if as is the case they are intent on importing their workforce from overseas. If that is the case then they should be held responsible for the needs of those employees for as long as they remain in the country. Of course this is a slightly different issue to NI but the basic principle remains. If companies will not volunteer corporate responsibility they should be made to through the tax system.
Most employees don't come from overseas. I've been an employer for over a decade and have never hired anyone direct from overseas. I have however hired people straight from the dole - relieving the taxpayer from having to pay for them - and getting penalised by taxes on top of taxes for having done so.
I have always thought that the security and self-respect from having a job was a good thing.
I don't understand why an employer offering struggling people jobs is something that should be penalised and discouraged through the tax system.
My brother is self employed currently, I hear his business is doing reasonably well - and actually I think he has it in NI/tax terms quite 'cushty'.
Should he ever wish to hire someone however - well that is truly where all the extra crippling costs come in as you say. The step change from Self employed to employer is far far too high.
Indeed it seems some people seem to think that employers have a magic money tree of their own for which ever higher burdens can be placed on them. The reality is that most employers are small business people for which every additional burden is a struggle and ones that can really discourage creating [or keeping] jobs - if not kill the business altogether if the burdens become too much.
I have been away for two days so did not get a chance to talk on the budget.
I fully support Hammond's NIC increase on the self-employed. The crocodile tears doesn't move me.
They still pay less than their share in NIC. Therefore, their NHS benefits should be proportionately less too !
I take it you have a hard line on health tourism?
I do except on an emergency. I have nothing against rich Chinese, Russians coming to private hospitals just like I have no problem with them spending money at Harrods.........
Ever wonder why there is such a drive towards automation when employers are punished time and again for offering employment?
If I purchase a machine to do a job then I can reclaim any VAT that was spent on purchasing it, so essentially only owe VAT on marginal profit. There are no further major on-going taxes I can think of.
If I hire a person to do the same job then I owe: wages, employers National Insurance, pension contributions, essentially VAT on the wages too, on top of potentially six months of sick pay, etc, etc, etc
Even if a person is economically more efficient than a machine the tax system penalises employment so much what incentive is there to not go for a machine if possible?
Of course companies should go whichever route is most cost effective for them. But if they are going to employ workers then they take on responsibility for them - particularly if as is the case they are intent on importing their workforce from overseas. If that is the case then they should be held responsible for the needs of those employees for as long as they remain in the country. Of course this is a slightly different issue to NI but the basic principle remains. If companies will not volunteer corporate responsibility they should be made to through the tax system.
Most employees don't come from overseas. I've been an employer for over a decade and have never hired anyone direct from overseas. I have however hired people straight from the dole - relieving the taxpayer from having to pay for them - and getting penalised by taxes on top of taxes for having done so.
I have always thought that the security and self-respect from having a job was a good thing.
I don't understand why an employer offering struggling people jobs is something that should be penalised and discouraged through the tax system.
My brother is self employed currently, I hear his business is doing reasonably well - and actually I think he has it in NI/tax terms quite 'cushty'.
Should he ever wish to hire someone however - well that is truly where all the extra crippling costs come in as you say. The step change from Self employed to employer is far far too high.
Indeed it seems some people seem to think that employers have a magic money tree of their own for which ever higher burdens can be placed on them. The reality is that most employers are small business people for which every additional burden is a struggle and ones that can really discourage creating [or keeping] jobs - if not kill the business altogether if the burdens become too much.
Most employees don't come from overseas. I've been an employer for over a decade and have never hired anyone direct from overseas. I have however hired people straight from the dole - relieving the taxpayer from having to pay for them - and getting penalised by taxes on top of taxes for having done so.
I have always thought that the security and self-respect from having a job was a good thing.
I don't understand why an employer offering struggling people jobs is something that should be penalised and discouraged through the tax system.
According to the ONS in November last year 95% of the growth in employment in the previous year had been filled by workers not born in Britain. Now I don't have a problem with that as long as the employers take full responsibility for the welfare costs of those workers not only as long as they are emptying them but until they either leave the country or get another job rather than expecting the taxpayer to do so.
According to the ONS in Feb 17 there are 28.44 million UK nationals employed versus 3.48 million non-UK nationals. Non-UK nationals make up 10.9% of those employed, meaning that UK nationals make up 89.1% of those employed.
If you want to do a tax for hiring non-UK nationals then that is not Employers NI or any of the other myriad of burdens the state places upon employers.
Indeed it seems some people seem to think that employers have a magic money tree of their own for which ever higher burdens can be placed on them. The reality is that most employers are small business people for which every additional burden is a struggle and ones that can really discourage creating [or keeping] jobs - if not kill the business altogether if the burdens become too much.
Tax the robots, as Bill Gates is proposing.
Can you come up with a definition of robot that doesn't also cover my washing machine?
Indeed it seems some people seem to think that employers have a magic money tree of their own for which ever higher burdens can be placed on them. The reality is that most employers are small business people for which every additional burden is a struggle and ones that can really discourage creating [or keeping] jobs - if not kill the business altogether if the burdens become too much.
Tax the robots, as Bill Gates is proposing.
Can you come up with a definition of robot that doesn't also cover my washing machine?
Sure, a "a robot is a device that does work that isn't wasd's washing machine".
Indeed it seems some people seem to think that employers have a magic money tree of their own for which ever higher burdens can be placed on them. The reality is that most employers are small business people for which every additional burden is a struggle and ones that can really discourage creating [or keeping] jobs - if not kill the business altogether if the burdens become too much.
Tax the robots, as Bill Gates is proposing.
Can you come up with a definition of robot that doesn't also cover my washing machine?
Sure, a "a robot is a device that does work that isn't wasd's washing machine".
I have been away for two days so did not get a chance to talk on the budget.
I fully support Hammond's NIC increase on the self-employed. The crocodile tears doesn't move me.
They still pay less than their share in NIC. Therefore, their NHS benefits should be proportionately less too !
Quite. Getting sick of rich people squealing when they have to give up a few pennies, while enthusiastically cheering people on benefits getting their incomes slashed.
Hopefully "Red Phil" sticks to his guns on this one.
The 25% Labour floor of vote share is looking rather fragile, Jeremy needs another relaunch.
Its an interesting question what the floor is. Nor sure how much support is actually the die hard loony left, but I think 19% might be rock bottom. (of course at 25% it might in reality only be 22%)
Indeed it seems some people seem to think that employers have a magic money tree of their own for which ever higher burdens can be placed on them. The reality is that most employers are small business people for which every additional burden is a struggle and ones that can really discourage creating [or keeping] jobs - if not kill the business altogether if the burdens become too much.
Tax the robots, as Bill Gates is proposing.
Can you come up with a definition of robot that doesn't also cover my washing machine?
Sure, a "a robot is a device that does work that isn't wasd's washing machine".
"Could...", "if....", and that's just in the first paragraph. And a distinct lack of quotes from aggrieved builders, cabbies, internet traders et al. about to man the barricades?
I don`t think it is the amount of money involved that will harm the Conservative cause. It is the fact that they have shown, once again, that they cannot be trusted. Moreover, they are a gang of unprincipled liars and cheats.
Perhaps reading your own link would be the logical thing to do? It is nonsense: "decimate" in the headline, 11 tory seats at risk in the actual text. "Decimate" depends on the current tory maj being less than 11. So what sort of "future election" are we talking about? If by-election, they generally happen in ones or at most twos, not elevens. If general election, the map is going to turn blue on current trends, and a few traditionally lib seats going the wrong way doesn't matter.
And I have no idea why St Ives is so heavily self-employed (fishing? freelance bed n breakfast cleaning?) but I live within walking distance of Cornwall and I can tell you it is poor - really poor. The NI changes as I understand it (from someone on here) are in favour of those on up to £16,500 p.a. If you apply that filter to St Ives, I am guessing you are left with a number of voters which would fit into one taxi.
Well of course I read the article in the link. If you'd read it you would notice that the eleven seats they mention all had majorities under 10% (some well under) and self employed percentages above 20% (some well over). They were just showing the constituencies that made the point most graphically. Tories used to be in favour of small businesses calling them the 'engine' of the economy, the raising of NI will slow that engine and help convince voters that the Tories are no longer the party of small businesses.
No longer the party of giving preferential treatment on NI to the self employed, no
"We need to be a country that celebrates enterprise and backs risk takers," Tory PM (Jan 2014)
Indeed it seems some people seem to think that employers have a magic money tree of their own for which ever higher burdens can be placed on them. The reality is that most employers are small business people for which every additional burden is a struggle and ones that can really discourage creating [or keeping] jobs - if not kill the business altogether if the burdens become too much.
Tax the robots, as Bill Gates is proposing.
Can you come up with a definition of robot that doesn't also cover my washing machine?
I noted the German authorities spin on the axe attacker last night with the comment of former Yugoslavia, a country that hasn't existed for 20 years...And now it has been revealed the individual is from Kosovo. I wonder why they didn't just mention that in the first place! (rhetorical question)
That Tim Pool guy who went to Sweden main criticism was of the authorities and the media. On additional to the police making false statements if something he had in camera, the swedish state tv translated somethings he never said and I think the most interesting was he reported the case of where a non-white criminals face was pixelated and the pixels changed to white under the guise of not wanting to encourage racism.
I have been away for two days so did not get a chance to talk on the budget.
I fully support Hammond's NIC increase on the self-employed. The crocodile tears doesn't move me.
They still pay less than their share in NIC. Therefore, their NHS benefits should be proportionately less too !
Quite. Getting sick of rich people squealing when they have to give up a few pennies, while enthusiastically cheering people on benefits getting their incomes slashed.
Hopefully "Red Phil" sticks to his guns on this one.
Why isn't Labour supporting this ? With the added promise of "improving" on this ?
That Tim Pool guy who went to Sweden main criticism was of the authorities and the media. On additional to the police making false statements if something he had in camera, the swedish state tv translated somethings he never said and I think the most interesting was he reported the case of where a non-white criminals face was pixelated and the pixels changed to white under the guise of not wanting to encourage racism.
I have been away for two days so did not get a chance to talk on the budget.
I fully support Hammond's NIC increase on the self-employed. The crocodile tears doesn't move me.
They still pay less than their share in NIC. Therefore, their NHS benefits should be proportionately less too !
Quite. Getting sick of rich people squealing when they have to give up a few pennies, while enthusiastically cheering people on benefits getting their incomes slashed.
Hopefully "Red Phil" sticks to his guns on this one.
Why isn't Labour supporting this ? With the added promise of "improving" on this ?
Most employees don't come from overseas. I've been an employer for over a decade and have never hired anyone direct from overseas. I have however hired people straight from the dole - relieving the taxpayer from having to pay for them - and getting penalised by taxes on top of taxes for having done so.
I have always thought that the security and self-respect from having a job was a good thing.
I don't understand why an employer offering struggling people jobs is something that should be penalised and discouraged through the tax system.
According to the ONS in November last year 95% of the growth in employment in the previous year had been filled by workers not born in Britain. Now I don't have a problem with that as long as the employers take full responsibility for the welfare costs of those workers not only as long as they are emptying them but until they either leave the country or get another job rather than expecting the taxpayer to do so.
According to the ONS in Feb 17 there are 28.44 million UK nationals employed versus 3.48 million non-UK nationals. Non-UK nationals make up 10.9% of those employed, meaning that UK nationals make up 89.1% of those employed.
If you want to do a tax for hiring non-UK nationals then that is not Employers NI or any of the other myriad of burdens the state places upon employers.
If you actually bother to read what I wrote it said the 95% was the growth in jobs not the existing jobs.
But the basic principle on employees vs self employed should still apply. If as a company you wish to use a self employed person rather than an employee then you should pay the same costs in each case. Using contractors is perfectly valid when being done because of the short term nature of the work where you don't want the long term costs of an additional employee. But on a day to day basis there should not be a tax saving to a company because they use a contractor rather than an employee.
I am not convinced that the public outcry at the self employed moving towards paying the same NI as everyone else will be as strong as the media thinks. Particularly as most people know that many of the self employed are prone to take a chunk of their earnings in cash free of any tax, let alone NI.
Nor am I. Indeed, I'm really annoyed at the endless whinging that follows every Budget. We have a deficit. We have lots of demands on the public purse, often from the very same people who object to paying anything extra at all.
I wish governments had the balls to face down these people: it was pathetic that Osborne backed down in the face of lots of extremely rich people moaning that they would not be charitable if there wasn't a tax advantage for them. Now we have some of the self-employed complaining about contributing to the public purse on the same basis as the rest of us on PAYE. Where was their sympathy when higher rate taxpayers had their personal allowance removed or when those who saved for their pension got screwed over by the government?
FFS!
The reality is that with a big deficit and endless - and possibly over-inflated and unrealistic - expectations of the public sector - we are all going to have to pay more.
That Tim Pool guy who went to Sweden main criticism was of the authorities and the media. On additional to the police making false statements if something he had in camera, the swedish state tv translated somethings he never said and I think the most interesting was he reported the case of where a non-white criminals face was pixelated and the pixels changed to white under the guise of not wanting to encourage racism.
That last bit can't be true, surely?
That was his claim. He certainly didn't come across as willing to spray around accusations ala trump. And having seen his video he was pretty even handed about the whole situation. I think the best interview he had was with a Afghan born swedish cop.
Most employees don't come from overseas. I've been an employer for over a decade and have never hired anyone direct from overseas. I have however hired people straight from the dole - relieving the taxpayer from having to pay for them - and getting penalised by taxes on top of taxes for having done so.
I have always thought that the security and self-respect from having a job was a good thing.
I don't understand why an employer offering struggling people jobs is something that should be penalised and discouraged through the tax system.
According to the ONS in November last year 95% of the growth in employment in the previous year had been filled by workers not born in Britain. Now I don't have a problem with that as long as the employers take full responsibility for the welfare costs of those workers not only as long as they are emptying them but until they either leave the country or get another job rather than expecting the taxpayer to do so.
According to the ONS in Feb 17 there are 28.44 million UK nationals employed versus 3.48 million non-UK nationals. Non-UK nationals make up 10.9% of those employed, meaning that UK nationals make up 89.1% of those employed.
If you want to do a tax for hiring non-UK nationals then that is not Employers NI or any of the other myriad of burdens the state places upon employers.
If you actually bother to read what I wrote it said the 95% was the growth in jobs not the existing jobs.
But the basic principle on employees vs self employed should still apply. If as a company you wish to use a self employed person rather than an employee then you should pay the same costs in each case. Using contractors is perfectly valid when being done because of the short term nature of the work where you don't want the long term costs of an additional employee. But on a day to day basis there should not be a tax saving to a company because they use a contractor rather than an employee.
I would get rid of employer's national insurance contributions altogether. We want to encourage job creation, not discourage it.
Comments
It is worth remembering with the LDs that although they saw their vote share hammered in 2013, they actually saw only very modest losses of councillors, and and actually made gains in some places. For this reason, I suspect that their gains will be quite limited: perhaps 50-100 net gains across the country.
From a LibDem Watch point of view, next year (assuming there isn't a General Election in the interim) will be much more interesting, as that's when the London boroughs have their elections. Will the LD resurgence come through in Richmond and Kingston - where losing the council presaged the loss of local MPs?
Looks like Labour polled at 18% once with Mori at end of may 2009?
It could be the making of him, and Paddy Pantsdown proved that a scandal was not harmful even in the short term.
London is the interesting one - so far there is less evidence that it is following the rest of the country away from Labour, despite its strong remain vote.
Atleast thats my sense from twitter where a dispropotionate number of them spend their time. That is THE only time I have heard them be flaky on him. The only one.
Best book title ever?
https://www.theguardian.com/global/2017/mar/10/internet-warriors-inside-dark-world-of-online-trolls-kyrre-lien
Editorial summary - it's not that trolls are perfectly normal people who change personality online. They're really like that.
And I have no idea why St Ives is so heavily self-employed (fishing? freelance bed n breakfast cleaning?) but I live within walking distance of Cornwall and I can tell you it is poor - really poor. The NI changes as I understand it (from someone on here) are in favour of those on up to £16,500 p.a. If you apply that filter to St Ives, I am guessing you are left with a number of voters which would fit into one taxi.
even those few bigger hitter they have won't have seen front-line politics for some years, having sat out Corbyn's tenure on the back benches, rather than build a base and demonstrate their capabilities on the front bench.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39225847
One man has been arrested. The 36-year-old suspect from the former Yugoslavia suffers from psychological problems, Duesseldorf police said.
This is ahead of two debates next week where for the first time both men will feature.
Equally the PVV's polling has not always translated into seats, outperforming significantly in 2010 then underperforming in 2012.
According to polling the general trend is (a) a move right coupled with (b) the collapse of the Labour Party, whose votes are being redistributed elsewhere.
I have always thought that the security and self-respect from having a job was a good thing.
I don't understand why an employer offering struggling people jobs is something that should be penalised and discouraged through the tax system.
If I started now I could get there for an early lunch.
Differing migration policies for differing parts of the UK would make UKIP very happy.
If you'd read it you would notice that the eleven seats they mention all had majorities under 10% (some well under) and self employed percentages above 20% (some well over). They were just showing the constituencies that made the point most graphically.
Tories used to be in favour of small businesses calling them the 'engine' of the economy, the raising of NI will slow that engine and help convince voters that the Tories are no longer the party of small businesses.
The "Diehard Leavers" come across as verging on xenophobic or possibly monomanics. They will endure anything to keep foreigners out. Sovereignty is just a method of keeping the foreigners out.
The "Diehard Remainers" come across as needing counselling for depression.
As usual, the bulk of people are in the middle. It is interesting that even the Diehard Leavers think we have no better than a 50/50 chance of a good deal. All other groups think our chances of a deal are worse.
Where would I place myself on their continuum? For years I was a reluctant "Better Off Out" but when the referendum started to become a reality I looked at the economics and shifted from Reluctant Leaver to Reluctant Remainer, but it was the emergence of intolerance towards people who have done nothing other than to come here and help and contribute that pushed me firmly into the Remain camp.
If you had told me 5 years ago that I would be a Remainer I would never have believed it
I wonder if she has learned to smile yet?
I fully support Hammond's NIC increase on the self-employed. The crocodile tears doesn't move me.
They still pay less than their share in NIC. Therefore, their NHS benefits should be proportionately less too !
Should he ever wish to hire someone however - well that is truly where all the extra crippling costs come in as you say. The step change from Self employed to employer is far far too high.
Ireland have looked more impressive so far. They're favourites to win at 1.61, and I think they stand a pretty good chance, maybe evens, of doing so by a double digit margin.
On the other hand, even if his party is the largest, he won't lead the country.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/bulletins/uklabourmarket/feb2017#employment-by-nationality-and-country-of-birth-not-seasonally-adjusted
According to the ONS in Feb 17 there are 28.44 million UK nationals employed versus 3.48 million non-UK nationals. Non-UK nationals make up 10.9% of those employed, meaning that UK nationals make up 89.1% of those employed.
If you want to do a tax for hiring non-UK nationals then that is not Employers NI or any of the other myriad of burdens the state places upon employers.
Simples.
Why aren't the VVD favourites ?
Back
VVD 2.24 £18.00 £22.30
£18.00
Lay
PVV1.94 £20.00 £18.76
Hopefully "Red Phil" sticks to his guns on this one.
The only note of caution I would add is that the PVV has tended to outperform its poll ratings in actual elections, unlike the FN.
But the basic principle on employees vs self employed should still apply. If as a company you wish to use a self employed person rather than an employee then you should pay the same costs in each case. Using contractors is perfectly valid when being done because of the short term nature of the work where you don't want the long term costs of an additional employee. But on a day to day basis there should not be a tax saving to a company because they use a contractor rather than an employee.
Nor am I. Indeed, I'm really annoyed at the endless whinging that follows every Budget. We have a deficit. We have lots of demands on the public purse, often from the very same people who object to paying anything extra at all.
I wish governments had the balls to face down these people: it was pathetic that Osborne backed down in the face of lots of extremely rich people moaning that they would not be charitable if there wasn't a tax advantage for them. Now we have some of the self-employed complaining about contributing to the public purse on the same basis as the rest of us on PAYE. Where was their sympathy when higher rate taxpayers had their personal allowance removed or when those who saved for their pension got screwed over by the government?
FFS!
The reality is that with a big deficit and endless - and possibly over-inflated and unrealistic - expectations of the public sector - we are all going to have to pay more.