I agree with @NickPalmer - the route to an early bath looks too tortuous to justify these odds. A resignation is the most likely, perhaps on health grounds or "health grounds". But he seems not to be overtaxing himself so I'm not expecting that either.
I'd be inclined to ignore Trump's poll ratings and keep an eye on Ivanka and a look out for signs of collateral damage to the Trump brand.
The West Virginia saga doesn’t say much for the Dem organisation in the state!
The legendary bumper sticker read: 'West Virginia - a million people, ten families'.
They voted Labour because historically, it was the party for the working classes, just as middle class left-wingers voted Conservative because it was the party for the middle classes.
Now, both groups are voting in line with their values.
The concept of the "working class" has changed out of all recognition and it isn't the monolithic block it once was whereas I think the notion of the "middle class" has largely survived.
I suspect there are social and cultural undercurrents at work as well - the much mentioned WWC may well be moving Conservative in some areas but in London and other southern areas it is trending back Labour.
The evolution of the UKIP vote is fascinating - it started as a swing away from the Conservatives but then picked up support among the WWC from Labour over immigration. The ex-Conservative voters returned to the fold first many going back in 2015 to ensure Cameron's majority (while the ex-Labour vote stayed either UKIP or abstained to get the Conservatives over the line) but in 2017 the remaining UKIP support fragmented again with elements of the ex-Labour WWC vote going Conservative but a larger bloc (especially in the south) swinging Labour.
I see the Democrat governor of West Virginia has defected to the Republicans!
Sssssshhh doesn't fit the agenda on here Nick
Might be worth pointing out that he is a former Republican. He appears to be something of a political weathercock. Mind you the same could be said of me!
Still a fairly stunning indictment of the current state of the Democrats.
Or the State of West Virginia...
It's true, though, that the Democrats manage to embody in one party a similar division of the left to that which in this country allowed a decade of Thatcher hegemony.
I spent a lot of the time I was reading it thinking that for 'democrat' you could read 'Conservative'. But it might be arguable that in some parts of the country you could also read 'Labour'.
There is a chance of a major political realignment to get underway. I can only hope we have worthier politicians than Corbyn and May (or Trump and Clinton) to lead it.
Incidentally @foxinsoxuk - speaking for myself the more time Trump spends on the golf course than in the Oval Office, the better pleased I am.
I think there's a big realignment of voters going on across Western democracies. Some middle class voters realise they've been left wing all along, matched by working class voters realising they've been right wing all along.
The middle classes aged under 50 no longer remember what a socialist government looks like in reality.
Have they never heard of the concept of picking up a history book to find out what happened a few decades ago?
and that Tezza's JAM speech didn't hit home.
Its a mystery why TMay's inspiring rhetoric and actions didn't hit home, isn't it??
The complacency and delusion among Tories...
I think her Downing Street speech was well received. Perhaps it was the self-interested home owners who jumped ship, or who wanted to give her a bloody nose. Remember it was her attempt to grasp the nettle of social care costs that was the turning point.
The right thing to do for the country, the wrong thing to do for her party: something Lab can never be accused of doing.
Spectacular results for Labour in last night's local by-elections, including winning the Marine ward in Worthing for the first time ever (I think). They also won Margate Central from UKIP.
I see the Democrat governor of West Virginia has defected to the Republicans!
Sssssshhh doesn't fit the agenda on here Nick
I think there's a big realignment of voters going on across Western democracies. Some middle class voters realise they've been left wing all along, matched by working class voters realising they've been right wing all along.
The middle classes aged under 50 no longer remember what a socialist government looks like in reality.
Have they never heard of the concept of picking up a history book to find out what happened a few decades ago?
and that Tezza's JAM speech didn't hit home.
Its a mystery why TMay's inspiring rhetoric and actions didn't hit home, isn't it??
The complacency and delusion among Tories...
I think her Downing Street speech was well received. Perhaps it was the self-interested home owners who jumped ship, or who wanted to give her a bloody nose. Remember it was her attempt to grasp the nettle of social care costs that was the turning point.
The right thing to do for the country, the wrong thing to do for her party: something Lab can never be accused of doing.
I agree, Topping, that addressing social care costs was "The right thing to do for the country, the wrong thing to do for her party" and it's a shame that she cocked-up the presentation of it so badly, because it's an issue that will still have to be addressed at some point.
The question I would like to put to tory PB'ers is: should social care be paid for by those impacted, where they have sufficient assets, e.g by eating into the inheritence they would like to pass on, or should it be paid for as a national NHS-like service (and therefore through taxation - implying taxes will have to rise)?
< Yes - and who has an absolutely shocking conversion rate. 29 50s and 12 hundreds is not good enough for a top batsman in the middle order. Compare with Cook (55 and 30) Williamson (25 and 17) or Smith (20 and 20).
...collapses as the rest of the middle order take their tone from him.
With all due respect, that's utter guff. England's batting problem lies at two and three.
Those are the figures. They do not lie. He is a very good batsman with a remarkable record who can nevertheless do better. A bit like a more productive Ian Bell.
On your other point, in a normal side, would you not want your best batsman at 3? And wouldn't that be Root? England's greatest batsman would surely be Hammond, who spent most of his career at 3. Williamson and Smith both bat at three. Kohli doesn't but frankly I don't rate him as highly as those three, or as Pujara. That's who Root should be looking to emulate.
Yet he doesn't want it and the management don't seem to want to push him. Why not? Temperament? Or his conversion rate? Or a mixture?
It's a fair question.
Temperament is probably the answer. Root seems to me to be a natural number four - whose job it is to push on the scoring rate. He has extraordinary natural ability, but I don't think has the sheer bloody mindedness required of a genuine number three. It is perhaps the most difficult batting position in cricket, as it requires the mentality of both opener and stroke maker; Root is naturally the latter.
He's batted every position from two to six at test level, and has made runs at three, but presumably knows his own mind on the matter. It seems pretty futile to try to make the captain bat in a position he doesn't appear to want, so England's priority should be finding someone decent to bat first drop. (And praying that Hameed fulfils his earlier promise.)
The concepts of 'left wing' and 'right wing' have broken down to the point where they are fast getting pointless without further social breakdowns.
What is more to the point is that our political parties haven't changed with that broader change in society, which is fuelling disillusionment with the current order.
Trump should receive an award for services to comedy. He has been a gift to US late night talk shows, who might have struggled talking about reality TV stars each night.
The question is whether the Trump circus is just a distraction and he is making changes without media spotlight. While media is concerned with Trumps latest Tweet or Russian link, Trump is signing off executive orders making changes he would not otherwise get away with ?
This newsweek article and cover seem to have it right. Trumps executive orders are often over trivial things. Trump is Ted Bundy:
Trump has done bugger all apart from golf and twitter in 6 months. He has been West of the Mississippi just once, and that to a rally. He hasnt even nominated candidates for hundreds of posts, let alone got them starting work. He is a classic egotistical slacker.
On the other hand his incompetence and laziness probably limits the harm he can do, apart from to his country's reputation.
Long term I think scrapping TPP could have a big impact and is where his inaction has a big effect...
Long term ? Only as long as he remains in office, I think.
Whereas judges he has appointed will be in office for decades.
I see the Democrat governor of West Virginia has defected to the Republicans!
Sssssshhh doesn't fit the agenda on here Nick
I think there's a big realignment of voters going on across Western democracies. Some middle class voters realise they've been left wing all along, matched by working class voters realising they've been right wing all along.
The middle classes aged under 50 no longer remember what a socialist government looks like in reality.
Have they never heard of the concept of picking up a history book to find out what happened a few decades ago?
and that Tezza's JAM speech didn't hit home.
Its a mystery why TMay's inspiring rhetoric and actions didn't hit home, isn't it??
The complacency and delusion among Tories...
The question I would like to put to tory PB'ers is: should social care be paid for by those impacted, where they have sufficient assets, e.g by eating into the inheritence they would like to pass on, or should it be paid for as a national NHS-like service (and therefore through taxation - implying taxes will have to rise)?
Just cut back overseas aid spending to the average % that the rest of the EU spend and we will have billions more to fund a basic level of social care for all. The wealthy can then choose to pay for extras on top.
I think her Downing Street speech was well received. Perhaps it was the self-interested home owners who jumped ship, or who wanted to give her a bloody nose. Remember it was her attempt to grasp the nettle of social care costs that was the turning point.
The right thing to do for the country, the wrong thing to do for her party: something Lab can never be accused of doing.
If the pb massive was right at the time that the dementia tax would leave families better off, then the problem was that the policy was dropped rather than explained and defended. In other words, Lynton Crosby ballsed up the campaign (and tore up "strong and stable" while he was at it). Cronsby's only success was convincing pb Tories it was all Nick and Fiona's fault.
I see the Democrat governor of West Virginia has defected to the Republicans!
Sssssshhh doesn't fit the agenda on here Nick
I think there's a big realignment of voters going on across Western democracies. Some middle class voters realise they've been left wing all along, matched by working class voters realising they've been right wing all along.
The middle classes aged under 50 no longer remember what a socialist government looks like in reality.
Have they never heard of the concept of picking up a history book to find out what happened a few decades ago?
and that Tezza's JAM speech didn't hit home.
Its a mystery why TMay's inspiring rhetoric and actions didn't hit home, isn't it??
The complacency and delusion among Tories...
I think her Downing Street speech was well received. Perhaps it was the self-interested home owners who jumped ship, or who wanted to give her a bloody nose. Remember it was her attempt to grasp the nettle of social care costs that was the turning point.
The right thing to do for the country, the wrong thing to do for her party: something Lab can never be accused of doing.
I agree, Topping, that addressing social care costs was "The right thing to do for the country, the wrong thing to do for her party" and it's a shame that she cocked-up the presentation of it so badly, because it's an issue that will still have to be addressed at some point.
The question I would like to put to tory PB'ers is: should social care be paid for by those impacted, where they have sufficient assets, e.g by eating into the inheritence they would like to pass on, or should it be paid for as a national NHS-like service (and therefore through taxation - implying taxes will have to rise)?
As a PB tory, I think the time for a 'low' but 'broad' IHT tax has come, 5% 'death tax' on estates, starting at say £100k would be possible without huge screams I would reckon, used to pay for social care. You could increase that to maybe 10% depending on numbers.
I would want more 'wealth' taxes over taxes on income, especially on workers, for which i don't think there much scope to raise too much.
Spectacular results for Labour in last night's local by-elections, including winning the Marine ward in Worthing for the first time ever (I think). They also won Margate Central from UKIP.
The rise and rise of Jezza continues unabated.
It also shows that Jezza's refusal to champion Remain continues to prove very astute.
I take no pleasure in that, but what an irony it will turn out to be if the Tory Brexiteers succeed in killing off UKIP but as a consequence give Corbyn the keys to No. 10!
Spectacular results for Labour in last night's local by-elections, including winning the Marine ward in Worthing for the first time ever (I think). They also won Margate Central from UKIP.
The rise and rise of Jezza continues unabated.
It also shows that Jezza's refusal to champion Remain continues to prove very astute.
I take no pleasure in that, but what an irony it will turn out to be if the Tory Brexiteers succeed in killing off UKIP but as a consequence give Corbyn the keys to No. 10!
Tory Brexiteers haven't killed off UKIP, UKIP has retired having achieved it's purpose.
I appreciate that many are pleased to see it disappear but the vast majority of those connected with the party are totally relaxed and content.
I think her Downing Street speech was well received. Perhaps it was the self-interested home owners who jumped ship, or who wanted to give her a bloody nose. Remember it was her attempt to grasp the nettle of social care costs that was the turning point.
The right thing to do for the country, the wrong thing to do for her party: something Lab can never be accused of doing.
If the pb massive was right at the time that the dementia tax would leave families better off, then the problem was that the policy was dropped rather than explained and defended. In other words, Lynton Crosby ballsed up the campaign (and tore up "strong and stable" while he was at it). Cronsby's only success was convincing pb Tories it was all Nick and Fiona's fault.
Agree she should have stuck to her guns re dementia tax. Btw who coined that term? I bet they won't be on Tezza's New Year's honours list! As a term it's wrong in so many ways but hard to avoid using.
Bedroom tax as a term was the same, albeit a much crueler measure, that I notice the Troies have not backed down on
I see the Democrat governor of West Virginia has defected to the Republicans!
Sssssshhh doesn't fit the agenda on here Nick
I think there's a big realignment of voters going on across Western democracies. Some middle class voters realise they've been left wing all along, matched by working class voters realising they've been right wing all along.
The middle classes aged under 50 no longer remember what a socialist government looks like in reality.
Have they never heard of the concept of picking up a history book to find out what happened a few decades ago?
and that Tezza's JAM speech didn't hit home.
Its a mystery why TMay's inspiring rhetoric and actions didn't hit home, isn't it??
The complacency and delusion among Tories...
I think her Downing Street speech was well received. Perhaps it was the self-interested home owners who jumped ship, or who wanted to give her a bloody nose. Remember it was her attempt to grasp the nettle of social care costs that was the turning point.
The right thing to do for the country, the wrong thing to do for her party: something Lab can never be accused of doing.
I agree, Topping, that addressing social care costs was "The right thing to do for the country, the wrong thing to do for her party" and it's a shame that she cocked-up the presentation of it so badly, because it's an issue that will still have to be addressed at some point.
The question I would like to put to tory PB'ers is: should social care be paid for by those impacted, where they have sufficient assets, e.g by eating into the inheritence they would like to pass on, or should it be paid for as a national NHS-like service (and therefore through taxation - implying taxes will have to rise)?
I don't think Burnham's £20,000 levy was the worst idea in the world.
I think her Downing Street speech was well received. Perhaps it was the self-interested home owners who jumped ship, or who wanted to give her a bloody nose. Remember it was her attempt to grasp the nettle of social care costs that was the turning point.
The right thing to do for the country, the wrong thing to do for her party: something Lab can never be accused of doing.
If the pb massive was right at the time that the dementia tax would leave families better off, then the problem was that the policy was dropped rather than explained and defended. In other words, Lynton Crosby ballsed up the campaign (and tore up "strong and stable" while he was at it). Cronsby's only success was convincing pb Tories it was all Nick and Fiona's fault.
Agree she should have stuck to her guns re dementia tax. Btw who coined that term? I bet they won't be on Tezza's New Year's honours list! As a term it's wrong in so many ways but hard to avoid using.
Bedroom tax as a term was the same, albeit a much crueler measure, that I notice the Troies have not backed down on
Caroline Lucas. Poor strategy to allow your opponents to define your policy, especially when she didn't really understand it herself (otherwise she would have been all for it).
So Dawid Malan gets another chance to show he's not good enough for Test cricket.
I see the Democrat governor of West Virginia has defected to the Republicans!
Sssssshhh doesn't fit the agenda on here Nick
.
The middle classes aged under 50 no longer remember what a socialist government looks like in reality.
Have they never heard of the concept of picking up a history book to find out what happened a few decades ago?
and that Tezza's JAM speech didn't hit home.
Its a mystery why TMay's inspiring rhetoric and actions didn't hit home, isn't it??
The complacency and delusion among Tories...
The right thing to do for the country, the wrong thing to do for her party: something Lab can never be accused of doing.
)?
As a PB tory, I think the time for a 'low' but 'broad' IHT tax has come, 5% 'death tax' on estates, starting at say £100k would be possible without huge screams I would reckon, used to pay for social care. You could increase that to maybe 10% depending on numbers.
I would want more 'wealth' taxes over taxes on income, especially on workers, for which i don't think there much scope to raise too much.
First the Chancellor needs to scrap the special inheritance tax allowance for residential property. It make no economic sense to have an allowance for residential property on death and any political benefit is swamped by other issues like the dementia tax.
Inflation (especially in house prices) will bring in more IHT revenue without having to change anything.
As a PB tory, I think the time for a 'low' but 'broad' IHT tax has come, 5% 'death tax' on estates, starting at say £100k would be possible without huge screams I would reckon, used to pay for social care. You could increase that to maybe 10% depending on numbers.
I would want more 'wealth' taxes over taxes on income, especially on workers, for which i don't think there much scope to raise too much.
The best form of tax system is that one everyone feels is fair, and is simple enough to be administered cheaply without lots of loopholes for evasion.
At the moment, our tax system fits into neither category. It clobbers those with assets, those with capital, those with income, and those without, at different times and in different ways, and is so opaque even tax lawyers appear not to understand it.
If somebody wished to do something daring then a total top-to-bottom reform of all taxes would be a good start. Simplified IHT, simplified NI, simplified income tax, simplified capital gains tax, abolition of stamp duty, abolishing of graduate taxes (which are in many ways the worst) - and higher upfront rates to pay for them.
However, there is no denying such a move would be very risky and I think could only be done from a position of surplus and economic growth.
Moreover, if one tax really needs sorting in the interests of fairness it's not IHT or any form of post-mortem tax, it's council tax.
I think her Downing Street speech was well received. Perhaps it was the self-interested home owners who jumped ship, or who wanted to give her a bloody nose. Remember it was her attempt to grasp the nettle of social care costs that was the turning point.
The right thing to do for the country, the wrong thing to do for her party: something Lab can never be accused of doing.
If the pb massive was right at the time that the dementia tax would leave families better off, then the problem was that the policy was dropped rather than explained and defended. In other words, Lynton Crosby ballsed up the campaign (and tore up "strong and stable" while he was at it). Cronsby's only success was convincing pb Tories it was all Nick and Fiona's fault.
Agree she should have stuck to her guns re dementia tax. Btw who coined that term? I bet they won't be on Tezza's New Year's honours list! As a term it's wrong in so many ways but hard to avoid using.
Bedroom tax as a term was the same, albeit a much crueler measure, that I notice the Troies have not backed down on
Caroline Lucas. Poor strategy to allow your opponents to define your policy, especially when she didn't really understand it herself (otherwise she would have been all for it).
So Dawid Malan gets another chance to show he's not good enough for Test cricket.
At ok thanks - a triumph of wit over intelligence.
It certainly stuck though even the tory press were using it freely (The Torygraph showed it's disdain by putting it in quotes iirc).
I see the Democrat governor of West Virginia has defected to the Republicans!
Sssssshhh doesn't fit the agenda on here Nick
I think there's a big realignment of voters going on across Western democracies. Some middle class voters realise they've been left wing all along, matched by working class voters realising they've been right wing all along.
The middle classes aged under 50 no longer remember what a socialist government looks like in reality.
Have they never heard of the concept of picking up a history book to find out what happened a few decades ago?
and that Tezza's JAM speech didn't hit home.
Its a mystery why TMay's inspiring rhetoric and actions didn't hit home, isn't it??
The complacency and delusion among Tories...
I think her Downing Street speech was well received. Perhaps it was the self-interested home owners who jumped ship, or who wanted to give her a bloody nose. Remember it was her attempt to grasp the nettle of social care costs that was the turning point.
The right thing to do for the country, the wrong thing to do for her party: something Lab can never be accused of doing.
I agree, Topping, that addressing social care costs was "The right thing to do for the country, the wrong thing to do for her party" and it's a shame that she cocked-up the presentation of it so badly, because it's an issue that will still have to be addressed at some point.
The question I would like to put to tory PB'ers is: should social care be paid for by those impacted, where they have sufficient assets, e.g by eating into the inheritence they would like to pass on, or should it be paid for as a national NHS-like service (and therefore through taxation - implying taxes will have to rise)?
I don't think Burnham's £20,000 levy was the worst idea in the world.
I think her Downing Street speech was well received. Perhaps it was the self-interested home owners who jumped ship, or who wanted to give her a bloody nose. Remember it was her attempt to grasp the nettle of social care costs that was the turning point.
The right thing to do for the country, the wrong thing to do for her party: something Lab can never be accused of doing.
If the pb massive was right at the time that the dementia tax would leave families better off, then the problem was that the policy was dropped rather than explained and defended. In other words, Lynton Crosby ballsed up the campaign (and tore up "strong and stable" while he was at it). Cronsby's only success was convincing pb Tories it was all Nick and Fiona's fault.
Agree she should have stuck to her guns re dementia tax. Btw who coined that term? I bet they won't be on Tezza's New Year's honours list! As a term it's wrong in so many ways but hard to avoid using.
Bedroom tax as a term was the same, albeit a much crueler measure, that I notice the Troies have not backed down on
Caroline Lucas. Poor strategy to allow your opponents to define your policy, especially when she didn't really understand it herself (otherwise she would have been all for it).
So Dawid Malan gets another chance to show he's not good enough for Test cricket.
At ok thanks - a triumph of wit over intelligence.
It certainly stuck though even the tory press were using it freely (The Torygraph showed it's disdain by putting it in quotes iirc).
That's the irony - the Tories didn't like it, but actually it wasn't that far from what the Greens were proposing - where the wealthiest recipients got the least.
I see the Democrat governor of West Virginia has defected to the Republicans!
Sssssshhh doesn't fit the agenda on here Nick
I think there's a big realignment of voters going on across Western democracies. Some middle class voters realise they've been left wing all along, matched by working class voters realising they've been right wing all along.
The middle classes aged under 50 no longer remember what a socialist government looks like in reality.
Have they never heard of the concept of picking up a history book to find out what happened a few decades ago?
and that Tezza's JAM speech didn't hit home.
Its a mystery why TMay's inspiring rhetoric and actions didn't hit home, isn't it??
The complacency and delusion among Tories...
I think her Downing Street speech was well received. Perhaps it was the self-interested home owners who jumped ship, or who wanted to give her a bloody nose. Remember it was her attempt to grasp the nettle of social care costs that was the turning point.
The right thing to do for the country, the wrong thing to do for her party: something Lab can never be accused of doing.
I agree, Topping, that addressing social care costs was "The right thing to do for the country, the wrong thing to do for her party" and it's a shame that she cocked-up the presentation of it so badly, because it's an issue that will still have to be addressed at some point.
The question I would like to put to tory PB'ers is: should social care be paid for by those impacted, where they have sufficient assets, e.g by eating into the inheritence they would like to pass on, or should it be paid for as a national NHS-like service (and therefore through taxation - implying taxes will have to rise)?
I don't think Burnham's £20,000 levy was the worst idea in the world.
The Cons didn't think so at the time...
Conservative poster before the 2010 election:
Yep. It was a mistake (to oppose it). But the key thing is they then tried to do something about it this time round - to cataclysmic effect.
As a PB tory, I think the time for a 'low' but 'broad' IHT tax has come, 5% 'death tax' on estates, starting at say £100k would be possible without huge screams I would reckon, used to pay for social care. You could increase that to maybe 10% depending on numbers.
I would want more 'wealth' taxes over taxes on income, especially on workers, for which i don't think there much scope to raise too much.
The best form of tax system is that one everyone feels is fair, and is simple enough to be administered cheaply without lots of loopholes for evasion.
At the moment, our tax system fits into neither category. It clobbers those with assets, those with capital, those with income, and those without, at different times and in different ways, and is so opaque even tax lawyers appear not to understand it.
If somebody wished to do something daring then a total top-to-bottom reform of all taxes would be a good start. Simplified IHT, simplified NI, simplified income tax, simplified capital gains tax, abolition of stamp duty, abolishing of graduate taxes (which are in many ways the worst) - and higher upfront rates to pay for them.
However, there is no denying such a move would be very risky and I think could only be done from a position of surplus and economic growth.
Moreover, if one tax really needs sorting in the interests of fairness it's not IHT or any form of post-mortem tax, it's council tax.
The issue of course is that with any widespread tax reform there will be widespread winners and losers. And the losers will be very vocal.
As a PB tory, I think the time for a 'low' but 'broad' IHT tax has come, 5% 'death tax' on estates, starting at say £100k would be possible without huge screams I would reckon, used to pay for social care. You could increase that to maybe 10% depending on numbers.
I would want more 'wealth' taxes over taxes on income, especially on workers, for which i don't think there much scope to raise too much.
The best form of tax system is that one everyone feels is fair, and is simple enough to be administered cheaply without lots of loopholes for evasion.
At the moment, our tax system fits into neither category. It clobbers those with assets, those with capital, those with income, and those without, at different times and in different ways, and is so opaque even tax lawyers appear not to understand it.
If somebody wished to do something daring then a total top-to-bottom reform of all taxes would be a good start. Simplified IHT, simplified NI, simplified income tax, simplified capital gains tax, abolition of stamp duty, abolishing of graduate taxes (which are in many ways the worst) - and higher upfront rates to pay for them.
However, there is no denying such a move would be very risky and I think could only be done from a position of surplus and economic growth.
Moreover, if one tax really needs sorting in the interests of fairness it's not IHT or any form of post-mortem tax, it's council tax.
The issue of course is that with any widespread tax reform there will be widespread winners and losers. And the losers will be very vocal.
That's one reason why it's risky (along with the potential for some twit at the treasury to get the sums wrong and end up with a huge deficit).
However, even allowing for that, I think if a government were seen to be acting fairly people would let them go ahead with it. If it was seen as a grab for the top 1% of earners, or a patent bribe to homeowners in Islington, then there would be a problem.
I see the Democrat governor of West Virginia has defected to the Republicans!
Sssssshhh doesn't fit the agenda on here Nick
The middle classes aged under 50 no longer remember what a socialist government looks like in reality.
Have they never heard of the concept of picking up a history book to find out what happened a few decades ago?
and that Tezza's JAM speech didn't hit home.
Its a mystery why TMay's inspiring rhetoric and actions didn't hit home, isn't it??
The complacency and delusion among Tories...
I think her Downing Street speech was well received. Perhaps it was the self-interested home owners who jumped ship, or who wanted to give her a bloody nose. Remember it was her attempt to grasp the nettle of social care costs that was the turning point.
The right thing to do for the country, the wrong thing to do for her party: something Lab can never be accused of doing.
I agree, Topping, that addressing social care costs was "The right thing to do for the country, the wrong thing to do for her party" and it's a shame that she cocked-up the presentation of it so badly, because it's an issue that will still have to be addressed at some point.
The question I would like to put to tory PB'ers is: should social care be paid for by those impacted, where they have sufficient assets, e.g by eating into the inheritence they would like to pass on, or should it be paid for as a national NHS-like service (and therefore through taxation - implying taxes will have to rise)?
I don't think Burnham's £20,000 levy was the worst idea in the world.
The Cons didn't think so at the time...
Conservative poster before the 2010 election:
Yep. It was a mistake (to oppose it). But the key thing is they then tried to do something about it this time round - to cataclysmic effect.
And, to be fair, it was a mistake for Labour to oppose that.
(Although, I think it was friendly fire that did for the Tories on social care, rather than the Labour attacks.)
As a PB tory, I think the time for a 'low' but 'broad' IHT tax has come, 5% 'death tax' on estates, starting at say £100k would be possible without huge screams I would reckon, used to pay for social care. You could increase that to maybe 10% depending on numbers.
I would want more 'wealth' taxes over taxes on income, especially on workers, for which i don't think there much scope to raise too much.
The best form of tax system is that one everyone feels is fair, and is simple enough to be administered cheaply without lots of loopholes for evasion.
At the moment, our tax system fits into neither category. It clobbers those with assets, those with capital, those with income, and those without, at different times and in different ways, and is so opaque even tax lawyers appear not to understand it.
If somebody wished to do something daring then a total top-to-bottom reform of all taxes would be a good start. Simplified IHT, simplified NI, simplified income tax, simplified capital gains tax, abolition of stamp duty, abolishing of graduate taxes (which are in many ways the worst) - and higher upfront rates to pay for them.
However, there is no denying such a move would be very risky and I think could only be done from a position of surplus and economic growth.
Moreover, if one tax really needs sorting in the interests of fairness it's not IHT or any form of post-mortem tax, it's council tax.
The issue of course is that with any widespread tax reform there will be widespread winners and losers. And the losers will be very vocal.
That's one reason why it's risky (along with the potential for some twit at the treasury to get the sums wrong and end up with a huge deficit).
However, even allowing for that, I think if a government were seen to be acting fairly people would let them go ahead with it. If it was seen as a grab for the top 1% of earners, or a patent bribe to homeowners in Islington, then there would be a problem.
I agree with a lot of what you say here about the need for tax reform but...
A grab for the top 1% of earners would not cause a problem amongst the 99% - the issue with it is whether much could be raised that way. And btw the Islington homeowners you fear might be bribed are in the top 1%!
As a PB tory, I think the time for a 'low' but 'broad' IHT tax has come, 5% 'death tax' on estates, starting at say £100k would be possible without huge screams I would reckon, used to pay for social care. You could increase that to maybe 10% depending on numbers.
I would want more 'wealth' taxes over taxes on income, especially on workers, for which i don't think there much scope to raise too much.
The best form of tax system is that one everyone feels is fair, and is simple enough to be administered cheaply without lots of loopholes for evasion.
At the moment, our tax system fits into neither category. It clobbers those with assets, those with capital, those with income, and those without, at different times and in different ways, and is so opaque even tax lawyers appear not to understand it.
If somebody wished to do something daring then a total top-to-bottom reform of all taxes would be a good start. Simplified IHT, simplified NI, simplified income tax, simplified capital gains tax, abolition of stamp duty, abolishing of graduate taxes (which are in many ways the worst) - and higher upfront rates to pay for them.
However, there is no denying such a move would be very risky and I think could only be done from a position of surplus and economic growth.
Moreover, if one tax really needs sorting in the interests of fairness it's not IHT or any form of post-mortem tax, it's council tax.
The issue of course is that with any widespread tax reform there will be widespread winners and losers. And the losers will be very vocal.
That's one reason why it's risky (along with the potential for some twit at the treasury to get the sums wrong and end up with a huge deficit).
However, even allowing for that, I think if a government were seen to be acting fairly people would let them go ahead with it. If it was seen as a grab for the top 1% of earners, or a patent bribe to homeowners in Islington, then there would be a problem.
I agree with a lot of what you say here about the need for tax reform but...
A grab for the top 1% of earners would not cause a problem amongst the 99% - the issue with it is whether much could be raised that way. And btw the Islington homeowners you fear might be bribed are in the top 1%!
Shhh! Jeremy might hear you
PS - I meant a grab to dodge tax by the top 1%, or to reduce their burden. Looking at it, that was very unclear and I apologise.
As a PB tory, I think the time for a 'low' but 'broad' IHT tax has come, 5% 'death tax' on estates, starting at say £100k would be possible without huge screams I would reckon, used to pay for social care. You could increase that to maybe 10% depending on numbers.
I would want more 'wealth' taxes over taxes on income, especially on workers, for which i don't think there much scope to raise too much.
The best form of tax system is that one everyone feels is fair, and is simple enough to be administered cheaply without lots of loopholes for evasion.
At the moment, our tax system fits into neither category. It clobbers those with assets, those with capital, those with income, and those without, at different times and in different ways, and is so opaque even tax lawyers appear not to understand it.
If somebody wished to do something daring then a total top-to-bottom reform of all taxes would be a good start. Simplified IHT, simplified NI, simplified income tax, simplified capital gains tax, abolition of stamp duty, abolishing of graduate taxes (which are in many ways the worst) - and higher upfront rates to pay for them.
However, there is no denying such a move would be very risky and I think could only be done from a position of surplus and economic growth.
Moreover, if one tax really needs sorting in the interests of fairness it's not IHT or any form of post-mortem tax, it's council tax.
Tax simplification is great in theory, but as there are always losers as well as winners, and you get little credit from the winners but great resentment on the part of those who lose out, it requires either a booming economy or a large majority or both. Under a minority government faced with the Brexit puzzle, it's just a pipe dream.
Not for nothing was Lawson the last chancellor to make any real progress in that direction. (Brown had the opportunity to have a go at it, but zero interest.)
And, to be fair, it was a mistake for Labour to oppose that.
(Although, I think it was friendly fire that did for the Tories on social care, rather than the Labour attacks.)
If ever an issue needed an all-party review, perhaps a Royal Commission, this is it. It'll never happens unless everyone's fingerprints are on it at the same time, yet it's an issue where most people recognise that Something Must Be Done.
The problem is that even proposing a commission will have a political cost - "party X reopens Death Tax idea".
As a PB tory, I think the time for a 'low' but 'broad' IHT tax has come, 5% 'death tax' on estates, starting at say £100k would be possible without huge screams I would reckon, used to pay for social care. You could increase that to maybe 10% depending on numbers.
I would want more 'wealth' taxes over taxes on income, especially on workers, for which i don't think there much scope to raise too much.
The best form of tax system is that one everyone feels is fair, and is simple enough to be administered cheaply without lots of loopholes for evasion.
At the moment, our tax system fits into neither category. It clobbers those with assets, those with capital, those with income, and those without, at different times and in different ways, and is so opaque even tax lawyers appear not to understand it.
If somebody wished to do something daring then a total top-to-bottom reform of all taxes would be a good start. Simplified IHT, simplified NI, simplified income tax, simplified capital gains tax, abolition of stamp duty, abolishing of graduate taxes (which are in many ways the worst) - and higher upfront rates to pay for them.
However, there is no denying such a move would be very risky and I think could only be done from a position of surplus and economic growth.
Moreover, if one tax really needs sorting in the interests of fairness it's not IHT or any form of post-mortem tax, it's council tax.
Best would be to tax both inheritance and capital gain on houses as income by the recipient, and integrate these this way.
My secretary's son has just made a capital gain of £350k on a flat in Putney in 3 years, quite an untaxed windfall.
And, to be fair, it was a mistake for Labour to oppose that.
(Although, I think it was friendly fire that did for the Tories on social care, rather than the Labour attacks.)
If ever an issue needed an all-party review, perhaps a Royal Commission, this is it. It'll never happens unless everyone's fingerprints are on it at the same time, yet it's an issue where most people recognise that Something Must Be Done.
The problem is that even proposing a commission will have a political cost - "party X reopens Death Tax idea".
Is it such a taboo subject? 'Death Tax' exists already as IHT doesn't it?
Has anyone got money on Jennings out in the first over? Edit - if you did, you lost your money but you must have had a good moment!
I'm already nervously reminded of Butcher's famous decision to bat on a wet pitch under cloudy skies in 1999 when Atherton scored 11 runs in 8 overs and they were all out for something 150. He never captained England again...
As a PB tory, I think the time for a 'low' but 'broad' IHT tax has come, 5% 'death tax' on estates, starting at say £100k would be possible without huge screams I would reckon, used to pay for social care. You could increase that to maybe 10% depending on numbers.
I would want more 'wealth' taxes over taxes on income, especially on workers, for which i don't think there much scope to raise too much.
The best form of tax system is that one everyone feels is fair, and is simple enough to be administered cheaply without lots of loopholes for evasion.
At the moment, our tax system fits into neither category. It clobbers those with assets, those with capital, those with income, and those without, at different times and in different ways, and is so opaque even tax lawyers appear not to understand it.
If somebody wished to do something daring then a total top-to-bottom reform of all taxes would be a good start. Simplified IHT, simplified NI, simplified income tax, simplified capital gains tax, abolition of stamp duty, abolishing of graduate taxes (which are in many ways the worst) - and higher upfront rates to pay for them.
However, there is no denying such a move would be very risky and I think could only be done from a position of surplus and economic growth.
Moreover, if one tax really needs sorting in the interests of fairness it's not IHT or any form of post-mortem tax, it's council tax.
The issue of course is that with any widespread tax reform there will be widespread winners and losers. And the losers will be very vocal.
That's one reason why it's risky (along with the potential for some twit at the treasury to get the sums wrong and end up with a huge deficit).
However, even allowing for that, I think if a government were seen to be acting fairly people would let them go ahead with it. If it was seen as a grab for the top 1% of earners, or a patent bribe to homeowners in Islington, then there would be a problem.
I agree with a lot of what you say here about the need for tax reform but...
A grab for the top 1% of earners would not cause a problem amongst the 99% - the issue with it is whether much could be raised that way. And btw the Islington homeowners you fear might be bribed are in the top 1%!
Shhh! Jeremy might hear you
PS - I meant a grab to dodge tax by the top 1%, or to reduce their burden. Looking at it, that was very unclear and I apologise.
Nah it's fine - he's cycling in Croatia; he'll not be browsing PB this week!
The best form of tax system is that one everyone feels is fair, and is simple enough to be administered cheaply without lots of loopholes for evasion. .. snip ..
For economic efficiency – i.e. welfare maximising – the best form of tax system is one that does not distort efficient resource allocation. That means that it should not hinder prices signalling scarcity, which entails inter alia that it should not affect production or consumption decisions at the margin.
The best form of tax system is that one everyone feels is fair, and is simple enough to be administered cheaply without lots of loopholes for evasion. .. snip ..
For economic efficiency – i.e. welfare maximising – the best form of tax system is one that does not distort efficient resource allocation. That means that it should not hinder prices signalling scarcity, which entails inter alia that it should not affect production or consumption decisions at the margin.
Er, could you translate that into plain English for us mere mortals?
Has anyone got money on Jennings out in the first over? Edit - if you did, you lost your money but you must have had a good moment!
I'm already nervously reminded of Butcher's famous decision to bat on a wet pitch under cloudy skies in 1999 when Atherton scored 11 runs in 8 overs and they were all out for something 150. He never captained England again...
Not only that, Butcher was dropped for the final test at the Oval.
Here's an idea... when a child is abandoned, financially, by its father the state steps in with an attachment of earnings and asserts the primacy of the "family" to look after its own... so when an elderly person is abandoned, financially, by their children, the same should happen. Taxpayers should not be paying a penny to care for an elderly person if they have immediate family who are having overseas holidays, Sky subscriptions, eating out etc.
Has anyone got money on Jennings out in the first over? Edit - if you did, you lost your money but you must have had a good moment!
I'm already nervously reminded of Butcher's famous decision to bat on a wet pitch under cloudy skies in 1999 when Atherton scored 11 runs in 8 overs and they were all out for something 150. He never captained England again...
Jennings reprieved (again) by the absence of a short leg. Might luck be on his side, or is he just using it all up ?
Has anyone got money on Jennings out in the first over? Edit - if you did, you lost your money but you must have had a good moment!
I'm already nervously reminded of Butcher's famous decision to bat on a wet pitch under cloudy skies in 1999 when Atherton scored 11 runs in 8 overs and they were all out for something 150. He never captained England again...
Not only that, Butcher was dropped for the final test at the Oval.
I'd forgotten that! He was replaced by Darren Maddy as I recall, who went on to have a great Test career of course...a whole three tests with a high score of 24 (without checking)?
Here's an idea... when a child is abandoned, financially, by its father the state steps in with an attachment of earnings and asserts the primacy of the "family" to look after its own... so when an elderly person is abandoned, financially, by their children, the same should happen. Taxpayers should not be paying a penny to care for an elderly person if they have immediate family who are having overseas holidays, Sky subscriptions, eating out etc.
Isn't there a significant legal difference between children and adults though... In that the parents of children are legally responsible for the welfare of their children until they are 18 where-as children have no such legal responsibilities to their parents (they may have a moral responsibility to their parents but that's a different issue...)
Has anyone got money on Jennings out in the first over? Edit - if you did, you lost your money but you must have had a good moment!
I'm already nervously reminded of Butcher's famous decision to bat on a wet pitch under cloudy skies in 1999 when Atherton scored 11 runs in 8 overs and they were all out for something 150. He never captained England again...
Jennings reprieved (again) by the absence of a short leg. Might luck be on his side, or is he just using it all up ?
I don't want an opener to be lucky all the time, I want him to be good. Of course some luck is desirable but you can't build a career on it.
As Ben Hogan acidly commented to a spectator who called him lucky, 'the more I practice the more luck I seem to have.'
And, to be fair, it was a mistake for Labour to oppose that.
(Although, I think it was friendly fire that did for the Tories on social care, rather than the Labour attacks.)
If ever an issue needed an all-party review, perhaps a Royal Commission, this is it. It'll never happens unless everyone's fingerprints are on it at the same time, yet it's an issue where most people recognise that Something Must Be Done.
The problem is that even proposing a commission will have a political cost - "party X reopens Death Tax idea".
Where do you stand on Venezuela Dr Nick?
Is the main problem that Chavez didn't have the elites murdered would you say?
Has anyone got money on Jennings out in the first over? Edit - if you did, you lost your money but you must have had a good moment!
I'm already nervously reminded of Butcher's famous decision to bat on a wet pitch under cloudy skies in 1999 when Atherton scored 11 runs in 8 overs and they were all out for something 150. He never captained England again...
Jennings reprieved (again) by the absence of a short leg. Might luck be on his side, or is he just using it all up ?
I don't want an opener to be lucky all the time, I want him to be good. Of course some luck is desirable but you can't build a career on it.
As Ben Hogan acidly commented to a spectator who called him lucky, 'the more I practice the more luck I seem to have.'
Quite - but if he gets lucky, he might then be dragged along on tour... to potentially disastrous effect.
The best form of tax system is that one everyone feels is fair, and is simple enough to be administered cheaply without lots of loopholes for evasion. .. snip ..
For economic efficiency – i.e. welfare maximising – the best form of tax system is one that does not distort efficient resource allocation. That means that it should not hinder prices signalling scarcity, which entails inter alia that it should not affect production or consumption decisions at the margin.
Er, could you translate that into plain English for us mere mortals?
The overall design of the tax system also affects economic growth. Ideally, a tax system should have low negative effects on welfare and economic efficiency; low administration and compliance costs; fair and non-discriminatory procedures in the way companies and individuals are treated; and be transparent and easily understandable. The UK system is a long way from meeting these goals.
And, to be fair, it was a mistake for Labour to oppose that.
(Although, I think it was friendly fire that did for the Tories on social care, rather than the Labour attacks.)
If ever an issue needed an all-party review, perhaps a Royal Commission, this is it. It'll never happens unless everyone's fingerprints are on it at the same time, yet it's an issue where most people recognise that Something Must Be Done.
The problem is that even proposing a commission will have a political cost - "party X reopens Death Tax idea".
Where do you stand on Venezuela Dr Nick?
Is the main problem that Chavez didn't have the elites murdered would you say?
Here's an idea... when a child is abandoned, financially, by its father the state steps in with an attachment of earnings and asserts the primacy of the "family" to look after its own... so when an elderly person is abandoned, financially, by their children, the same should happen. Taxpayers should not be paying a penny to care for an elderly person if they have immediate family who are having overseas holidays, Sky subscriptions, eating out etc.
Basing the provision of social care on the assets that the person or their family has encourages the wrong behaviour, i.e. to spend or hide the assets. If a person acts in a profligate way through their life why should they get a basic level of social care and the frugal person should not?
And, to be fair, it was a mistake for Labour to oppose that.
(Although, I think it was friendly fire that did for the Tories on social care, rather than the Labour attacks.)
If ever an issue needed an all-party review, perhaps a Royal Commission, this is it. It'll never happens unless everyone's fingerprints are on it at the same time, yet it's an issue where most people recognise that Something Must Be Done.
The problem is that even proposing a commission will have a political cost - "party X reopens Death Tax idea".
Where do you stand on Venezuela Dr Nick?
Is the main problem that Chavez didn't have the elites murdered would you say?
You are very, very silly Gin
Why? I just wondered what his take was on the whole situation and Ken's latest outburst...
The best form of tax system is that one everyone feels is fair, and is simple enough to be administered cheaply without lots of loopholes for evasion. .. snip ..
For economic efficiency – i.e. welfare maximising – the best form of tax system is one that does not distort efficient resource allocation. That means that it should not hinder prices signalling scarcity, which entails inter alia that it should not affect production or consumption decisions at the margin.
Er, could you translate that into plain English for us mere mortals?
The overall design of the tax system also affects economic growth. Ideally, a tax system should have low negative effects on welfare and economic efficiency; low administration and compliance costs; fair and non-discriminatory procedures in the way companies and individuals are treated; and be transparent and easily understandable. The UK system is a long way from meeting these goals.
Well I agree on all of that! Achieving improvement is the challenge!
Here's an idea... when a child is abandoned, financially, by its father the state steps in with an attachment of earnings and asserts the primacy of the "family" to look after its own... so when an elderly person is abandoned, financially, by their children, the same should happen. Taxpayers should not be paying a penny to care for an elderly person if they have immediate family who are having overseas holidays, Sky subscriptions, eating out etc.
Isn't there a significant legal difference between children and adults though... In that the parents of children are legally responsible for the welfare of their children until they are 18 where-as children have no such legal responsibilities to their parents (they may have a moral responsibility to their parents but that's a different issue...)
I see the Democrat governor of West Virginia has defected to the Republicans!
Sssssshhh doesn't fit the agenda on here Nick
Might be worth pointing out that he is a former Republican. He appears to be something of a political weathercock. Mind you the same could be said of me!
Still a fairly stunning indictment of the current state of the Democrats.
Or the State of West Virginia...
It's true, though, that the Democrats manage to embody in one party a similar division of the left to that which in this country allowed a decade of Thatcher hegemony.
I spent a lot of the time I was reading it thinking that for 'democrat' you could read 'Conservative'. But it might be arguable that in some parts of the country you could also read 'Labour'.
There is a chance of a major political realignment to get underway. I can only hope we have worthier politicians than Corbyn and May (or Trump and Clinton) to lead it.
Incidentally @foxinsoxuk - speaking for myself the more time Trump spends on the golf course than in the Oval Office, the better pleased I am.
I think there's a big realignment of voters going on across Western democracies. Some middle class voters realise they've been left wing all along, matched by working class voters realising they've been right wing all along.
The middle classes aged under 50 no longer remember what a socialist government looks like in reality.
Have they never heard of the concept of picking up a history book to find out what happened a few decades ago?
Why only a few decades ago? Surely in order to be an informed voter they need to start earlier, perhaps with William/Harold?
On a more serious note, perhaps this is an indication that the middle classes (income bracket?) feel more remote from the "ruling classes" and that Tezza's JAM speech didn't hit home.
Wasn't Harold/William another one that Yougov got wrong?
The best form of tax system is that one everyone feels is fair, and is simple enough to be administered cheaply without lots of loopholes for evasion. .. snip ..
For economic efficiency – i.e. welfare maximising – the best form of tax system is one that does not distort efficient resource allocation. That means that it should not hinder prices signalling scarcity, which entails inter alia that it should not affect production or consumption decisions at the margin.
Er, could you translate that into plain English for us mere mortals?
The overall design of the tax system also affects economic growth. Ideally, a tax system should have low negative effects on welfare and economic efficiency; low administration and compliance costs; fair and non-discriminatory procedures in the way companies and individuals are treated; and be transparent and easily understandable. The UK system is a long way from meeting these goals.
Well I agree on all of that! Achieving improvement is the challenge!
There's the thing. We all agree on it, because it's obviously true. The problem, as @Nigelb pointed out upthread, is it would take huge political and economic capital and would therefore require a large majority and economic room for manouevere, neither of which are going to be available in this country for ten years on current trends (although as we all know, they can change). Brown could have done it, but because he was Brown and was a technocrat with no imagination all his tinkering has done is make matters much worse. (On that point, which is different though related, I'm currently writing a report on his schools policy and to call my conclusions scathing is to put it rather mildly.)
Here's an idea... when a child is abandoned, financially, by its father the state steps in with an attachment of earnings and asserts the primacy of the "family" to look after its own... so when an elderly person is abandoned, financially, by their children, the same should happen. Taxpayers should not be paying a penny to care for an elderly person if they have immediate family who are having overseas holidays, Sky subscriptions, eating out etc.
Isn't there a significant legal difference between children and adults though... In that the parents of children are legally responsible for the welfare of their children until they are 18 where-as children have no such legal responsibilities to their parents (they may have a moral responsibility to their parents but that's a different issue...)
Simple enough. You change the law.....
That would be a very fundamental change between the rights and responsibilities of parents, children and the State though.
You would, in effect, be saying that even though children have no say in whether their parents have them or not, they are still legally responsible for them.
And what happens in situations where parents and their adult children are estranged? Would the child still be legally responsible even though they might not have seen their parents for 20 years?
Here's an idea... when a child is abandoned, financially, by its father the state steps in with an attachment of earnings and asserts the primacy of the "family" to look after its own... so when an elderly person is abandoned, financially, by their children, the same should happen. Taxpayers should not be paying a penny to care for an elderly person if they have immediate family who are having overseas holidays, Sky subscriptions, eating out etc.
Isn't there a significant legal difference between children and adults though... In that the parents of children are legally responsible for the welfare of their children until they are 18 where-as children have no such legal responsibilities to their parents (they may have a moral responsibility to their parents but that's a different issue...)
Simple enough. You change the law.....
Taking money from the frugal and lucky, to pay for the profligate is a very bad way to nurture the right behaviours in society.
As a PB tory, I think the time for a 'low' but 'broad' IHT tax has come, 5% 'death tax' on estates, starting at say £100k would be possible without huge screams I would reckon, used to pay for social care. You could increase that to maybe 10% depending on numbers.
I would want more 'wealth' taxes over taxes on income, especially on workers, for which i don't think there much scope to raise too much.
The best form of tax system is that one everyone feels is fair, and is simple enough to be administered cheaply without lots of loopholes for evasion.
At the moment, our tax system fits into neither category. It clobbers those with assets, those with capital, those with income, and those without, at different times and in different ways, and is so opaque even tax lawyers appear not to understand it.
If somebody wished to do something daring then a total top-to-bottom reform of all taxes would be a good start. Simplified IHT, simplified NI, simplified income tax, simplified capital gains tax, abolition of stamp duty, abolishing of graduate taxes (which are in many ways the worst) - and higher upfront rates to pay for them.
However, there is no denying such a move would be very risky and I think could only be done from a position of surplus and economic growth.
Moreover, if one tax really needs sorting in the interests of fairness it's not IHT or any form of post-mortem tax, it's council tax.
The issue of course is that with any widespread tax reform there will be widespread winners and losers. And the losers will be very vocal.
That's one reason why it's risky (along with the potential for some twit at the treasury to get the sums wrong and end up with a huge deficit).
However, even allowing for that, I think if a government were seen to be acting fairly people would let them go ahead with it. If it was seen as a grab for the top 1% of earners, or a patent bribe to homeowners in Islington, then there would be a problem.
I agree with a lot of what you say here about the need for tax reform but...
A grab for the top 1% of earners would not cause a problem amongst the 99% - the issue with it is whether much could be raised that way. And btw the Islington homeowners you fear might be bribed are in the top 1%!
That is indeed the issue. There's simply not enough 'rich' people to raise say 10tens of billions from.
Yep, you can do it with corporation tax as well, but then thats been spent by labour already ten times over. Although I think reducing CT below 20% by the tories was a poor choice.
Here's an idea... when a child is abandoned, financially, by its father the state steps in with an attachment of earnings and asserts the primacy of the "family" to look after its own... so when an elderly person is abandoned, financially, by their children, the same should happen. Taxpayers should not be paying a penny to care for an elderly person if they have immediate family who are having overseas holidays, Sky subscriptions, eating out etc.
Isn't there a significant legal difference between children and adults though... In that the parents of children are legally responsible for the welfare of their children until they are 18 where-as children have no such legal responsibilities to their parents (they may have a moral responsibility to their parents but that's a different issue...)
Simple enough. You change the law.....
That would be a very fundamental change between the rights and responsibilities of parents, children and the State though.
You would, in effect, be saying that even though children have no say in whether their parents have them or not, they are still legally responsible for them.
And what happens in situations where parents and their adult children are estranged? Would the child still be legally responsible even though they might not have seen their parents for 20 years?
Would be pretty controversial IMO.
I'm not sure we should be providing incentives for children to top their parent's off either.
I am not sure I see a mechanism for Trump departing before the end of his term but his chances of standing again must surely be very limited given this level of polling so early in his administration. Single term Presidents have not been the norm in recent decades, even "W" got 2 goes, but this looks pretty nailed on.
Given the evident disarray of the Democrats the question is really where do the Republicans go next? The candidates who Trump beat so comprehensively in the Primaries did not exactly inspire.
I see the Democrat governor of West Virginia has defected to the Republicans!
Sssssshhh doesn't fit the agenda on here Nick
Might be worth pointing out that he is a former Republican. He appears to be something of a political weathercock. Mind you the same could be said of me!
Still a fairly stunning indictment of the current state of the Democrats.
Or the State of West Virginia...
It's true, though, that the Democrats manage to embody in one party a similar division of the left to that which in this country allowed a decade of Thatcher hegemony.
I spent a lot of the time I was reading it thinking that for 'democrat' you could read 'Conservative'. But it might be arguable that in some parts of the country you could also read 'Labour'.
There is a chance of a major political realignment to get underway. I can only hope we have worthier politicians than Corbyn and May (or Trump and Clinton) to lead it.
Incidentally @foxinsoxuk - speaking for myself the more time Trump spends on the golf course than in the Oval Office, the better pleased I am.
I think there's a big realignment of voters going on across Western democracies. Some middle class voters realise they've been left wing all along, matched by working class voters realising they've been right wing all along.
The middle classes aged under 50 no longer remember what a socialist government looks like in reality.
Have they never heard of the concept of picking up a history book to find out what happened a few decades ago?
Why only a few decades ago? Surely in order to be an informed voter they need to start earlier, perhaps with William/Harold?
On a more serious note, perhaps this is an indication that the middle classes (income bracket?) feel more remote from the "ruling classes" and that Tezza's JAM speech didn't hit home.
Wasn't Harold/William another one that Yougov got wrong?
The sub-samples for their Dunkirk polling didn't look too promising for the Brits either.
The best form of tax system is that one everyone feels is fair, and is simple enough to be administered cheaply without lots of loopholes for evasion. .. snip ..
For economic efficiency – i.e. welfare maximising – the best form of tax system is one that does not distort efficient resource allocation. That means that it should not hinder prices signalling scarcity, which entails inter alia that it should not affect production or consumption decisions at the margin.
Therefore do not encourage the 55+ year olds to spend their inheritance or give it away or hide it rather than provide for their dotage? Anyone for equity release to reduce their assets ahead of the 40% chance of a care home for a 80+ year old female?
Here's an idea... when a child is abandoned, financially, by its father the state steps in with an attachment of earnings and asserts the primacy of the "family" to look after its own... so when an elderly person is abandoned, financially, by their children, the same should happen. Taxpayers should not be paying a penny to care for an elderly person if they have immediate family who are having overseas holidays, Sky subscriptions, eating out etc.
Isn't there a significant legal difference between children and adults though... In that the parents of children are legally responsible for the welfare of their children until they are 18 where-as children have no such legal responsibilities to their parents (they may have a moral responsibility to their parents but that's a different issue...)
Simple enough. You change the law.....
Isn't the the point that a parent child relationship occurs because of the choices and actions of the parents not the children? Parents therefore have an obligation to support their children, not the other way round.
I see the Democrat governor of West Virginia has defected to the Republicans!
Sssssshhh doesn't fit the agenda on here Nick
Might be worth pointing out that he is a former Republican. He appears to be something of a political weathercock. Mind you the same could be said of me!
Still a fairly stunning indictment of the current state of the Democrats.
Or the State of West Virginia...
It's true, though, that the Democrats manage to embody in one party a similar division of the left to that which in this country allowed a decade of Thatcher hegemony.
I spent a lot of the time I was reading it thinking that for 'democrat' you could read 'Conservative'. But it might be arguable that in some parts of the country you could also read 'Labour'.
There is a chance of a major political realignment to get underway. I can only hope we have worthier politicians than Corbyn and May (or Trump and Clinton) to lead it.
Incidentally @foxinsoxuk - speaking for myself the more time Trump spends on the golf course than in the Oval Office, the better pleased I am.
I think there's a big realignment of voters going on across Western democracies. Some middle class voters realise they've been left wing all along, matched by working class voters realising they've been right wing all along.
The middle classes aged under 50 no longer remember what a socialist government looks like in reality.
Have they never heard of the concept of picking up a history book to find out what happened a few decades ago?
Why only a few decades ago? Surely in order to be an informed voter they need to start earlier, perhaps with William/Harold?
On a more serious note, perhaps this is an indication that the middle classes (income bracket?) feel more remote from the "ruling classes" and that Tezza's JAM speech didn't hit home.
Wasn't Harold/William another one that Yougov got wrong?
The sub-samples for their Dunkirk polling didn't look too promising for the Brits either.
Here's an idea... when a child is abandoned, financially, by its father the state steps in with an attachment of earnings and asserts the primacy of the "family" to look after its own... so when an elderly person is abandoned, financially, by their children, the same should happen. Taxpayers should not be paying a penny to care for an elderly person if they have immediate family who are having overseas holidays, Sky subscriptions, eating out etc.
Isn't there a significant legal difference between children and adults though... In that the parents of children are legally responsible for the welfare of their children until they are 18 where-as children have no such legal responsibilities to their parents (they may have a moral responsibility to their parents but that's a different issue...)
Simple enough. You change the law.....
That would be a very fundamental change between the rights and responsibilities of parents, children and the State though.
You would, in effect, be saying that even though children have no say in whether their parents have them or not, they are still legally responsible for them.
And what happens in situations where parents and their adult children are estranged? Would the child still be legally responsible even though they might not have seen their parents for 20 years?
Would be pretty controversial IMO.
I'm not sure we should be providing incentives for children to top their parent's off either.
Another good reason against means testing anyone for a basic level of social care.
The best form of tax system is that one everyone feels is fair, and is simple enough to be administered cheaply without lots of loopholes for evasion. .. snip ..
For economic efficiency – i.e. welfare maximising – the best form of tax system is one that does not distort efficient resource allocation. That means that it should not hinder prices signalling scarcity, which entails inter alia that it should not affect production or consumption decisions at the margin.
Therefore do not encourage the 55+ year olds to spend their inheritance or give it away or hide it rather than provide for their dotage? Anyone for equity release to reduce their assets ahead of the 40% chance of a care home for a 80+ year old female?
Councils may consider that an attempt to avoid care charges and will act if the 80 year old needs care in the short or even medium term future.
Here's an idea... when a child is abandoned, financially, by its father the state steps in with an attachment of earnings and asserts the primacy of the "family" to look after its own... so when an elderly person is abandoned, financially, by their children, the same should happen. Taxpayers should not be paying a penny to care for an elderly person if they have immediate family who are having overseas holidays, Sky subscriptions, eating out etc.
Isn't there a significant legal difference between children and adults though... In that the parents of children are legally responsible for the welfare of their children until they are 18 where-as children have no such legal responsibilities to their parents (they may have a moral responsibility to their parents but that's a different issue...)
Simple enough. You change the law.....
That would be a very fundamental change between the rights and responsibilities of parents, children and the State though.
You would, in effect, be saying that even though children have no say in whether their parents have them or not, they are still legally responsible for them.
And what happens in situations where parents and their adult children are estranged? Would the child still be legally responsible even though they might not have seen their parents for 20 years?
Would be pretty controversial IMO.
I'm not sure we should be providing incentives for children to top their parent's off either.
Indeed. I mean, don't get me wrong I do think grown up children have moral responsibilities and a duty of care to their parents...
It's a disgrace really that so many old people are sitting on NHS wards (when they aren't actually "sick" they are just "old") because there's nobody to look after them when they may have 2-3 adult children, adult grandchildren and even adult great grandchildren, etc...
Morally its appalling and I could never abandon my mother like that... But changing the law to make children responsible for parents seems fraught with problems and dangers.
As a PB tory, I think the time for a 'low' but 'broad' IHT tax has come, 5% 'death tax' on estates, starting at say £100k would be possible without huge screams I would reckon, used to pay for social care. You could increase that to maybe 10% depending on numbers.
I would want more 'wealth' taxes over taxes on income, especially on workers, for which i don't think there much scope to raise too much.
The best form of tax system is that one everyone feels is fair, and is simple enough to be administered cheaply without lots of loopholes for evasion.
At the moment, our tax system fits into neither category. It clobbers those with assets, those with capital, those with income, and those without, at different times and in different ways, and is so opaque even tax lawyers appear not to understand it.
If somebody wished to do something daring then a total top-to-bottom reform of all taxes would be a good start. Simplified IHT, simplified NI, simplified income tax, simplified capital gains tax, abolition of stamp duty, abolishing of graduate taxes (which are in many ways the worst) - and higher upfront rates to pay for them.
However, there is no denying such a move would be very risky and I think could only be done from a position of surplus and economic growth.
Moreover, if one tax really needs sorting in the interests of fairness it's not IHT or any form of post-mortem tax, it's council tax.
The issue of course is that with any widespread tax reform there will be widespread winners and losers. And the losers will be very vocal.
That's one reason why it's risky (along with the potential for some twit at the treasury to get the sums wrong and end up with a huge deficit).
However, even allowing for that, I think if a government were seen to be acting fairly people would let them go ahead with it. If it was seen as a grab for the top 1% of earners, or a patent bribe to homeowners in Islington, then there would be a problem.
I agree with a lot of what you say here about the need for tax reform but...
A grab for the top 1% of earners would not cause a problem amongst the 99% - the issue with it is whether much could be raised that way. And btw the Islington homeowners you fear might be bribed are in the top 1%!
That is indeed the issue. There's simply not enough 'rich' people to raise say 10tens of billions from.
Yep, you can do it with corporation tax as well, but then thats been spent by labour already ten times over. Although I think reducing CT below 20% by the tories was a poor choice.
I think Hammond will delay CT change in November Budget.
We will see about talks being revived... that's likely in 3 or more years time. And it's not as though it was just Trump opposed - Congress was sceptical I think.
As a PB tory, I think the time for a 'low' but 'broad' IHT tax has come, 5% 'death tax' on estates, starting at say £100k would be possible without huge screams I would reckon, used to pay for social care. You could increase that to maybe 10% depending on numbers.
I would want more 'wealth' taxes over taxes on income, especially on workers, for which i don't think there much scope to raise too much.
The best form of tax system is that one everyone feels is fair, and is simple enough to be administered cheaply without lots of loopholes for evasion.
At the moment, our tax system fits into neither category. It clobbers those with assets, those with capital, those with income, and those without, at different times and in different ways, and is so opaque even tax lawyers appear not to understand it. .............
The issue of course is that with any widespread tax reform there will be widespread winners and losers. And the losers will be very vocal.
That's one reason why it's risky (along with the potential for some twit at the treasury to get the sums wrong and end up with a huge deficit).
However, even allowing for that, I think if a government were seen to be acting fairly people would let them go ahead with it. If it was seen as a grab for the top 1% of earners, or a patent bribe to homeowners in Islington, then there would be a problem.
I agree with a lot of what you say here about the need for tax reform but...
A grab for the top 1% of earners would not cause a problem amongst the 99% - the issue with it is whether much could be raised that way. And btw the Islington homeowners you fear might be bribed are in the top 1%!
That is indeed the issue. There's simply not enough 'rich' people to raise say 10tens of billions from.
Yep, you can do it with corporation tax as well, but then thats been spent by labour already ten times over. Although I think reducing CT below 20% by the tories was a poor choice.
We spend about £7 billion a year on overseas aid higher than the average % in the EU.
Life is about choices. Do more than 99% of the world's countries for charity or fund our old properly. I think that I know what has more votes.
I see the Democrat governor of West Virginia has defected to the Republicans!
Sssssshhh doesn't fit the agenda on here Nick
Might be worth pointing out that he is a former Republican. He appears to be something of a political weathercock. Mind you the same could be said of me!
Still a fairly stunning indictment of the current state of the Democrats.
Or the State of West Virginia...
It's true, though, that the Democrats manage to embody in one party a similar division of the left to that which in this country allowed a decade of Thatcher hegemony.
I spent a lot of the time I was reading it thinking that for 'democrat' you could read 'Conservative'. But it might be arguable that in some parts of the country you could also read 'Labour'.
There is a chance of a major political realignment to get underway. I can only hope we have worthier politicians than Corbyn and May (or Trump and Clinton) to lead it.
Incidentally @foxinsoxuk - speaking for myself the more time Trump spends on the golf course than in the Oval Office, the better pleased I am.
I think there's a big realignment of voters going on across Western democracies. Some middle class voters realise they've been left wing all along, matched by working class voters realising they've been right wing all along.
The middle classes aged under 50 no longer remember what a socialist government looks like in reality.
Have they never heard of the concept of picking up a history book to find out what happened a few decades ago?
Why only a few decades ago? Surely in order to be an informed voter they need to start earlier, perhaps with William/Harold?
On a more serious note, perhaps this is an indication that the middle classes (income bracket?) feel more remote from the "ruling classes" and that Tezza's JAM speech didn't hit home.
Wasn't Harold/William another one that Yougov got wrong?
The sub-samples for their Dunkirk polling didn't look too promising for the Brits either.
Going to see that tonight. No spoilers!
It is a fantastic film. Up there with Jarman & Davies, IMO.
As a PB tory, I think the time for a 'low' but 'broad' IHT tax has come, 5% 'death tax' on estates, starting at say £100k would be possible without huge screams I would reckon, used to pay for social care. You could increase that to maybe 10% depending on numbers.
I would want more 'wealth' taxes over taxes on income, especially on workers, for which i don't think there much scope to raise too much.
The best form of tax system is that one everyone feels is fair, and is simple enough to be administered cheaply without lots of loopholes for evasion.
At the moment, our tax system fits into neither category. It clobbers those with assets, those with capital, those with income, and those without, at different times and in different ways, and is so opaque even tax lawyers appear not to understand it.
However, there is no denying such a move would be very risky and I think could only be done from a position of surplus and economic growth.
Moreover, if one tax really needs sorting in the interests of fairness it's not IHT or any form of post-mortem tax, it's council tax.
The issue of course is that with any widespread tax reform there will be widespread winners and losers. And the losers will be very vocal.
That's one reason why it's risky (along with the potential for some twit at the treasury to get the sums wrong and end up with a huge deficit).
However, even allowing for that, I think if a government were seen to be acting fairly people would let them go ahead with it. If it was seen as a grab for the top 1% of earners, or a patent bribe to homeowners in Islington, then there would be a problem.
I agree with a lot of what you say here about the need for tax reform but...
A grab for the top 1% of earners would not cause a problem amongst the 99% - the issue with it is whether much could be raised that way. And btw the Islington homeowners you fear might be bribed are in the top 1%!
That is indeed the issue. There's simply not enough 'rich' people to raise say 10tens of billions from.
Yep, you can do it with corporation tax as well, but then thats been spent by labour already ten times over. Although I think reducing CT below 20% by the tories was a poor choice.
I think Hammond will delay CT change in November Budget.
Here's an idea... when a child is abandoned, financially, by its father the state steps in with an attachment of earnings and asserts the primacy of the "family" to look after its own... so when an elderly person is abandoned, financially, by their children, the same should happen. Taxpayers should not be paying a penny to care for an elderly person if they have immediate family who are having overseas holidays, Sky subscriptions, eating out etc.
Isn't there a significant legal difference between children and adults though... In that the parents of children are legally responsible for the welfare of their children until they are 18 where-as children have no such legal responsibilities to their parents (they may have a moral responsibility to their parents but that's a different issue...)
Simple enough. You change the law.....
That would be a very fundamental change between the rights and responsibilities of parents, children and the State though.
You would, in effect, be saying that even though children have no say in whether their parents have them or not, they are still legally responsible for them.
And what happens in situations where parents and their adult children are estranged? Would the child still be legally responsible even though they might not have seen their parents for 20 years?
Would be pretty controversial IMO.
I'm not sure we should be providing incentives for children to top their parent's off either.
Indeed. I mean, don't get me wrong I do think grown up children have moral responsibilities and a duty of care to their parents...
It's a disgrace really that so many old people are sitting on NHS wards (when they aren't actually "sick" they are just "old") because there's nobody to look after them when they may have 2-3 adult children, adult grandchildren and even adult great grandchildren, etc...
Morally its appalling and I could never abandon my mother like that... But changing the law to make children responsible for parents seems fraught with problems and dangers.
The problem is often that on a short term basis older people are kept in hospital in lieu of care being arranged or in place. It's not that they are abandoned to hospital instead of the bosom of their family; often the family is keen to get them home to be able to do some looking after. But those short term days and weeks add up in aggregate.
Here's an idea... when a child is abandoned, financially, by its father the state steps in with an attachment of earnings and asserts the primacy of the "family" to look after its own... so when an elderly person is abandoned, financially, by their children, the same should happen. Taxpayers should not be paying a penny to care for an elderly person if they have immediate family who are having overseas holidays, Sky subscriptions, eating out etc.
Isn't there a significant legal difference between children and adults though... In that the parents of children are legally responsible for the welfare of their children until they are 18 where-as children have no such legal responsibilities to their parents (they may have a moral responsibility to their parents but that's a different issue...)
Simple enough. You change the law.....
Isn't the the point that a parent child relationship occurs because of the choices and actions of the parents not the children? Parents therefore have an obligation to support their children, not the other way round.
i'd love to tell my mum ...no mum, you ARE NOT buying that new car, be responsible FFS.
Here's an idea... when a child is abandoned, financially, by its father the state steps in with an attachment of earnings and asserts the primacy of the "family" to look after its own... so when an elderly person is abandoned, financially, by their children, the same should happen. Taxpayers should not be paying a penny to care for an elderly person if they have immediate family who are having overseas holidays, Sky subscriptions, eating out etc.
Isn't there a significant legal difference between children and adults though... In that the parents of children are legally responsible for the welfare of their children until they are 18 where-as children have no such legal responsibilities to their parents (they may have a moral responsibility to their parents but that's a different issue...)
Simple enough. You change the law.....
Isn't the the point that a parent child relationship occurs because of the choices and actions of the parents not the children? Parents therefore have an obligation to support their children, not the other way round.
i'd love to tell my mum ...no mum, you ARE NOT buying that new car, be responsible FFS.
The best form of tax system is that one everyone feels is fair, and is simple enough to be administered cheaply without lots of loopholes for evasion. .. snip ..
For economic efficiency – i.e. welfare maximising – the best form of tax system is one that does not distort efficient resource allocation. That means that it should not hinder prices signalling scarcity, which entails inter alia that it should not affect production or consumption decisions at the margin.
Therefore do not encourage the 55+ year olds to spend their inheritance or give it away or hide it rather than provide for their dotage? Anyone for equity release to reduce their assets ahead of the 40% chance of a care home for a 80+ year old female?
Councils may consider that an attempt to avoid care charges and will act if the 80 year old needs care in the short or even medium term future.
A single 80 year old is typically too late. People 60+ are already taking out equity release and blowing it on fast cars, funding housing for the kids etc etc. LA's have no ability to come after much of this especially if it happened 10+ years before the assessment. Also downsizing from a £500k house to a £300k one and then a split of house via tenants in common to 2 wills with a right to reside for survivor (usually female) cuts the risk down to maybe £150k of assets at risk to care home fees, lower if there is an equity release earlier which has impaired it with a mortgage.....
At the moment, our tax system fits into neither category. It clobbers those with assets, those with capital, those with income, and those without, at different times and in different ways, and is so opaque even tax lawyers appear not to understand it.
If somebody wished to do something daring then a total top-to-bottom reform of all taxes would be a good start. Simplified IHT, simplified NI, simplified income tax, simplified capital gains tax, abolition of stamp duty, abolishing of graduate taxes (which are in many ways the worst) - and higher upfront rates to pay for them.
However, there is no denying such a move would be very risky and I think could only be done from a position of surplus and economic growth.
Moreover, if one tax really needs sorting in the interests of fairness it's not IHT or any form of post-mortem tax, it's council tax.
The issue of course is that with any widespread tax reform there will be widespread winners and losers. And the losers will be very vocal.
That's one reason why it's risky (along with the potential for some twit at the treasury to get the sums wrong and end up with a huge deficit).
However, even allowing for that, I think if a government were seen to be acting fairly people would let them go ahead with it. If it was seen as a grab for the top 1% of earners, or a patent bribe to homeowners in Islington, then there would be a problem.
I agree with a lot of what you say here about the need for tax reform but...
A grab for the top 1% of earners would not cause a problem amongst the 99% - the issue with it is whether much could be raised that way. And btw the Islington homeowners you fear might be bribed are in the top 1%!
That is indeed the issue. There's simply not enough 'rich' people to raise say 10tens of billions from.
Yep, you can do it with corporation tax as well, but then thats been spent by labour already ten times over. Although I think reducing CT below 20% by the tories was a poor choice.
Here are some ideas:
1. Roll employees NI into income tax to simplify the tax system to stop the self-employed and wealthy pensioners being taxed at lower rates. 2. While we're at it abolish employers NI and raise CT to maintain cover the lost revenue. 3. Treat dividend income the same as any other income. 4. Introduce a LVT and a Wealth tax for the top 5% 5. Introduce a very low rate FTT.
Here's an idea... when a child is abandoned, financially, by its father the state steps in with an attachment of earnings and asserts the primacy of the "family" to look after its own... so when an elderly person is abandoned, financially, by their children, the same should happen. Taxpayers should not be paying a penny to care for an elderly person if they have immediate family who are having overseas holidays, Sky subscriptions, eating out etc.
Isn't there a significant legal difference between children and adults though... In that the parents of children are legally responsible for the welfare of their children until they are 18 where-as children have no such legal responsibilities to their parents (they may have a moral responsibility to their parents but that's a different issue...)
Simple enough. You change the law.....
Isn't the the point that a parent child relationship occurs because of the choices and actions of the parents not the children? Parents therefore have an obligation to support their children, not the other way round.
i'd love to tell my mum ...no mum, you ARE NOT buying that new car, be responsible FFS.
Here's an idea... when a child is abandoned, financially, by its father the state steps in with an attachment of earnings and asserts the primacy of the "family" to look after its own... so when an elderly person is abandoned, financially, by their children, the same should happen. Taxpayers should not be paying a penny to care for an elderly person if they have immediate family who are having overseas holidays, Sky subscriptions, eating out etc.
Isn't there a significant legal difference between children and adults though... In that the parents of children are legally responsible for the welfare of their children until they are 18 where-as children have no such legal responsibilities to their parents (they may have a moral responsibility to their parents but that's a different issue...)
Simple enough. You change the law.....
That would be a very fundamental change between the rights and responsibilities of parents, children and the State though.
You would, in effect, be saying that even though children have no say in whether their parents have them or not, they are still legally responsible for them.
And what happens in situations where parents and their adult children are estranged? Would the child still be legally responsible even though they might not have seen their parents for 20 years?
Would be pretty controversial IMO.
I'm not sure we should be providing incentives for children to top their parent's off either.
Indeed. I mean, don't get me wrong I do think grown up children have moral responsibilities and a duty of care to their parents...
It's a disgrace really that so many old people are sitting on NHS wards (when they aren't actually "sick" they are just "old") because there's nobody to look after them when they may have 2-3 adult children, adult grandchildren and even adult great grandchildren, etc...
Morally its appalling and I could never abandon my mother like that... But changing the law to make children responsible for parents seems fraught with problems and dangers.
The problem is often that on a short term basis older people are kept in hospital in lieu of care being arranged or in place. It's not that they are abandoned to hospital instead of the bosom of their family; often the family is keen to get them home to be able to do some looking after. But those short term days and weeks add up in aggregate.
Just start charging the Local Authority for any delay after 7 days of notice at a high daily rate. £1,000 a day would get the elderly shifted out very quickly.
The best form of tax system is that one everyone feels is fair, and is simple enough to be administered cheaply without lots of loopholes for evasion. .. snip ..
For economic efficiency – i.e. welfare maximising – the best form of tax system is one that does not distort efficient resource allocation. That means that it should not hinder prices signalling scarcity, which entails inter alia that it should not affect production or consumption decisions at the margin.
Er, could you translate that into plain English for us mere mortals?
The overall design of the tax system also affects economic growth. Ideally, a tax system should have low negative effects on welfare and economic efficiency; low administration and compliance costs; fair and non-discriminatory procedures in the way companies and individuals are treated; and be transparent and easily understandable. The UK system is a long way from meeting these goals.
Well I agree on all of that! Achieving improvement is the challenge!
There's the thing. We all agree on it, because it's obviously true. The problem, as @Nigelb pointed out upthread, is it would take huge political and economic capital and would therefore require a large majority and economic room for manouevere, neither of which are going to be available in this country for ten years on current trends (although as we all know, they can change). Brown could have done it, but because he was Brown and was a technocrat with no imagination all his tinkering has done is make matters much worse. (On that point, which is different though related, I'm currently writing a report on his schools policy and to call my conclusions scathing is to put it rather mildly.)
Don't blame you. (I remember attending a 'Building Schools for the Future' roadshow when a school governor, which must have cost several grand to put on, to no great purpose other than PR. Shortly thereafter, the program was scrapped...)
Here's an idea... when a child is abandoned, financially, by its father the state steps in with an attachment of earnings and asserts the primacy of the "family" to look after its own... so when an elderly person is abandoned, financially, by their children, the same should happen. Taxpayers should not be paying a penny to care for an elderly person if they have immediate family who are having overseas holidays, Sky subscriptions, eating out etc.
Isn't there a significant legal difference bete...)
Simple enough. You change the law.....
That would be a very fundamental change between the rights and responsibilities of parents, children and the State though.
You would, in effect, be saying that even though children have no say in whether their parents have them or not, they are still legally responsible for them.
And what happens in situations where parents and their adult children are estranged? Would the child still be legally responsible even though they might not have seen their parents for 20 years?
Would be pretty controversial IMO.
I'm not sure we should be providing incentives for children to top their parent's off either.
Indeed. I mean, don't get me wrong I do think grown up children have moral responsibilities and a duty of care to their parents...
It's a disgrace really that so many old people are sitting on NHS wards (when they aren't actually "sick" they are just "old") because there's nobody to look after them when they may have 2-3 adult children, adult grandchildren and even adult great grandchildren, etc...
Morally its appalling and I could never abandon my mother like that... But changing the law to make children responsible for parents seems fraught with problems and dangers.
The problem is often that on a short term basis older people are kept in hospital in lieu of care being arranged or in place. It's not that they are abandoned to hospital instead of the bosom of their family; often the family is keen to get them home to be able to do some looking after. But those short term days and weeks add up in aggregate.
Just start charging the Local Authority for any delay after 7 days of notice at a high daily rate. £1,000 a day would get the elderly shifted out very quickly.
Nice in principle but some of the arrangements, for example when patients are under MDTs, or getting prescriptions, or need specialist equipment, is out of the hands of the local authority. All the LA would be able to do is to stand over the hospital and say "get a bloody move on..."
The best form of tax system is that one everyone feels is fair, and is simple enough to be administered cheaply without lots of loopholes for evasion. .. snip ..
For economic efficiency – i.e. welfare maximising – the best form of tax system is one that does not distort efficient resource allocation. That means that it should not hinder prices signalling scarcity, which entails inter alia that it should not affect production or consumption decisions at the margin.
Therefore do not encourage the 55+ year olds to spend their inheritance or give it away or hide it rather than provide for their dotage? Anyone for equity release to reduce their assets ahead of the 40% chance of a care home for a 80+ year old female?
Councils may consider that an attempt to avoid care charges and will act if the 80 year old needs care in the short or even medium term future.
A single 80 year old is typically too late. People 60+ are already taking out equity release and blowing it on fast cars, funding housing for the kids etc etc. LA's have no ability to come after much of this especially if it happened 10+ years before the assessment. Also downsizing from a £500k house to a £300k one and then a split of house via tenants in common to 2 wills with a right to reside for survivor (usually female) cuts the risk down to maybe £150k of assets at risk to care home fees, lower if there is an equity release earlier which has impaired it with a mortgage.....
The best form of tax system is that one everyone feels is fair, and is simple enough to be administered cheaply without lots of loopholes for evasion. .. snip ..
For economic efficiency – i.e. welfare maximising – the best form of tax system is one that does not distort efficient resource allocation. That means that it should not hinder prices signalling scarcity, which entails inter alia that it should not affect production or consumption decisions at the margin.
Therefore do not encourage the 55+ year olds to spend their inheritance or give it away or hide it rather than provide for their dotage? Anyone for equity release to reduce their assets ahead of the 40% chance of a care home for a 80+ year old female?
Councils may consider that an attempt to avoid care charges and will act if the 80 year old needs care in the short or even medium term future.
A single 80 year old is typically too late. People 60+ are already taking out equity release and blowing it on fast cars, funding housing for the kids etc etc. LA's have no ability to come after much of this especially if it happened 10+ years before the assessment. Also downsizing from a £500k house to a £300k one and then a split of house via tenants in common to 2 wills with a right to reside for survivor (usually female) cuts the risk down to maybe £150k of assets at risk to care home fees, lower if there is an equity release earlier which has impaired it with a mortgage.....
Equity release is taxed as income though right? So someone equity-releasing £100k in a year would raise at least £28k in tax - more if it's on top of another income.
I do agree though it was a stupid policy since it will add more burden onto the state for those who irresponsibly spend their pension early.
Isn't there a significant legal difference bete...)
Simple enough. You change the law.....
That would be a very fundamental change between the rights and responsibilities of parents, children and the State though.
You would, in effect, be saying that even though children have no say in whether their parents have them or not, they are still legally responsible for them.
And what happens in situations where parents and their adult children are estranged? Would the child still be legally responsible even though they might not have seen their parents for 20 years?
Would be pretty controversial IMO.
I'm not sure we should be providing incentives for children to top their parent's off either.
Indeed. I mean, don't get me wrong I do think grown up children have moral responsibilities and a duty of care to their parents...
It's a disgrace really that so many old people are sitting on NHS wards (when they aren't actually "sick" they are just "old") because there's nobody to look after them when they may have 2-3 adult children, adult grandchildren and even adult great grandchildren, etc...
Morally its appalling and I could never abandon my mother like that... But changing the law to make children responsible for parents seems fraught with problems and dangers.
The problem is often that on a short term basis older people are kept in hospital in lieu of care being arranged or in place. It's not that they are abandoned to hospital instead of the bosom of their family; often the family is keen to get them home to be able to do some looking after. But those short term days and weeks add up in aggregate.
Just start charging the Local Authority for any delay after 7 days of notice at a high daily rate. £1,000 a day would get the elderly shifted out very quickly.
Nice in principle but some of the arrangements, for example when patients are under MDTs, or getting prescriptions, or need specialist equipment, is out of the hands of the local authority. All the LA would be able to do is to stand over the hospital and say "get a bloody move on..."
In any event the LA is funded by you and me! Charging the LA is charging us.
Corbyn and the Govt have support from a major Union.
GMB union suggests curbing free movement is more important than retaining single market membership
The leader of the GMB union, the third largest in the UK, has suggested that curbing free movement of people is a more important priority that remaining in the single market. Tim Roache, General Secretary of GMB, told the Today programme on BBC Radio 4 that the outcome of the Brexit referendum was due to frustration at high levels of migration which had driven down wages. He also suggested that it may be possible to negotiate ongoing membership of the single market while tackling freedom of movement. However, he said that the UK did not need to remain in the single market to retain many of the benefits, adding, “People, companies, countries in the EU want to trade with the UK — there’s no doubt about that. What we need to do if we’re out of the single market is use that as an opportunity for positive investment.” The Times
Isn't there a significant legal difference bete...)
Simple enough. You change the law.....
That would be a very fundamental change between the rights and responsibilities of parents, children and the State though.
You would, in effect, be saying that even though children have no say in whether their parents have them or not, they are still legally responsible for them.
And what happens in situations where parents and their adult children are estranged? Would the child still be legally responsible even though they might not have seen their parents for 20 years?
Would be pretty controversial IMO.
I'm not sure we should be providing incentives for children to top their parent's off either.
Indeed. I mean, don't get me wrong I do think grown up children have moral responsibilities and a duty of care to their parents...
It's a disgrace really that so many old people are sitting on NHS wards (when they aren't actually "sick" they are just "old") because there's nobody to look after them when they may have 2-3 adult children, adult grandchildren and even adult great grandchildren, etc...
Morally its appalling and I could never abandon my mother like that... But changing the law to make children responsible for parents seems fraught with problems and dangers.
The problem is often that on a short term basis older people are kept in hospital in lieu of care being arranged or in place. It's not that they are abandoned to hospital instead of the bosom of their family; often the family is keen to get them home to be able to do some looking after. But those short term days and weeks add up in aggregate.
Just start charging the Local Authority for any delay after 7 days of notice at a high daily rate. £1,000 a day would get the elderly shifted out very quickly.
Nice in principle but some of the arrangements, for example when patients are under MDTs, or getting prescriptions, or need specialist equipment, is out of the hands of the local authority. All the LA would be able to do is to stand over the hospital and say "get a bloody move on..."
In any event the LA is funded by you and me! Charging the LA is charging us.
Yes and they would prefer to pay under £100 a day than £1,000 a day. At present the longer they delay the more days at zero cost the L.A. has.
The best form of tax system is that one everyone feels is fair, and is simple enough to be administered cheaply without lots of loopholes for evasion. .. snip ..
For economic efficiency – i.e. welfare maximising – the best form of tax system is one that does not distort efficient resource allocation. That means that it should not hinder prices signalling scarcity, which entails inter alia that it should not affect production or consumption decisions at the margin.
Therefore do not encourage the 55+ year olds to spend their inheritance or give it away or hide it rather than provide for their dotage? Anyone for equity release to reduce their assets ahead of the 40% chance of a care home for a 80+ year old female?
Councils may consider that an attempt to avoid care charges and will act if the 80 year old needs care in the short or even medium term future.
A single 80 year old is typically too late. People 60+ are already taking out equity release and blowing it on fast cars, funding housing for the kids etc etc. LA's have no ability to come after much of this especially if it happened 10+ years before the assessment. Also downsizing from a £500k house to a £300k one and then a split of house via tenants in common to 2 wills with a right to reside for survivor (usually female) cuts the risk down to maybe £150k of assets at risk to care home fees, lower if there is an equity release earlier which has impaired it with a mortgage.....
Equity release is taxed as income though right? So someone equity-releasing £100k in a year would raise at least £28k in tax - more if it's on top of another income.
I do agree though it was a stupid policy since it will add more burden onto the state for those who irresponsibly spend their pension early.
Equity release is a loan, and usually secured by your primary residence. I don't think that is taxed.
Correct. For an estate with a potential IHT payment it also helps to take on a larger debt and hand over the cash to the kids and then survive 7 years to make it leave the estate of the next to die.
The best form of tax system is that one everyone feels is fair, and is simple enough to be administered cheaply without lots of loopholes for evasion. .. snip ..
For economic efficiency – i.e. welfare maximising – the best form of tax system is one that does not distort efficient resource allocation. That means that it should not hinder prices signalling scarcity, which entails inter alia that it should not affect production or consumption decisions at the margin.
Therefore do not encourage the 55+ year olds to spend their inheritance or give it away or hide it rather than provide for their dotage? Anyone for equity release to reduce their assets ahead of the 40% chance of a care home for a 80+ year old female?
Councils may consider that an attempt to avoid care charges and will act if the 80 year old needs care in the short or even medium term future.
A single 80 year old is typically too late. People 60+ are already taking out equity release and blowing it on fast cars, funding housing for the kids etc etc. LA's have no ability to come after much of this especially if it happened 10+ years before the assessment. Also downsizing from a £500k house to a £300k one and then a split of house via tenants in common to 2 wills with a right to reside for survivor (usually female) cuts the risk down to maybe £150k of assets at risk to care home fees, lower if there is an equity release earlier which has impaired it with a mortgage.....
Equity release is taxed as income though right? So someone equity-releasing £100k in a year would raise at least £28k in tax - more if it's on top of another income.
I do agree though it was a stupid policy since it will add more burden onto the state for those who irresponsibly spend their pension early.
Isn't there a significant legal difference bete...)
Simple enough. You change the law.....
That would be a very fundamental change between the rights and responsibilities of parents, children and the State though.
You would, in effect, be saying that even though children have no say in whether their parents have them or not, they are still legally responsible for them.
And what happens in situations where parents and their adult children are estranged? Would the child still be legally responsible even though they might not have seen their parents for 20 years?
Would be pretty controversial IMO.
I'm not sure we should be providing incentives for children to top their parent's off either.
Indeed. I mean, don't get me wrong I do think grown up children have moral responsibilities and a duty of care to their parents...
It's a disgrace really that so many old people are sitting on NHS wards (when they aren't actually "sick" they are just "old") because there's nobody to look after them when they may have 2-3 adult children, adult grandchildren and even adult great grandchildren, etc...
Morally its appalling and I could never abandon my mother like that... But changing the law to make children responsible for parents seems fraught with problems and dangers.
The problem is often that on a short term basis older people are kept in hospital in lieu of care being arranged or in place. It's not that they are abandoned to hospital instead of the bosom of their family; often the family is keen to get them home to be able to do some looking after. But those short term days and weeks add up in aggregate.
Just start charging the Local Authority for any delay after 7 days of notice at a high daily rate. £1,000 a day would get the elderly shifted out very quickly.
Nice in principle but some of the arrangements, for example when patients are under MDTs, or getting prescriptions, or need specialist equipment, is out of the hands of the local authority. All the LA would be able to do is to stand over the hospital and say "get a bloody move on..."
In any event the LA is funded by you and me! Charging the LA is charging us.
Yes and they would prefer to pay under £100 a day than £1,000 a day. At present the longer they delay the more days at zero cost the L.A. has.
There's the thing. We all agree on it, because it's obviously true. The problem, as @Nigelb pointed out upthread, is it would take huge political and economic capital and would therefore require a large majority and economic room for manouevere, neither of which are going to be available in this country for ten years on current trends (although as we all know, they can change). Brown could have done it, but because he was Brown and was a technocrat with no imagination all his tinkering has done is make matters much worse. (On that point, which is different though related, I'm currently writing a report on his schools policy and to call my conclusions scathing is to put it rather mildly.)
Don't blame you. (I remember attending a 'Building Schools for the Future' roadshow when a school governor, which must have cost several grand to put on, to no great purpose other than PR. Shortly thereafter, the program was scrapped...)
In 1994, when I started there, Newent Community School put up a block of four temporary classrooms with a life of 20 years, in addition to two classrooms erected in 1991. They were to be there until a new sixth form centre was built.
In 1997 the grant for this was approved. In 1998 GM schools were abolished and this grant went. The LEA refused to release any extra money without giving a reason.
In 2008 BSF put borrowed money into the school which created a new art block, a new classroom on the English corridor and a new fitness centre in the PE department, re-jigging the changing rooms at the same time. The school budget is still under strain paying for this
In 2014 I briefly worked at Newent. There was still no sixth form centre and those temporary classrooms were still there. For all I know - indeed, given what's happened since, more than likely - they are still there.
Labour's failure on educational budgeting in a microcosm.
As for BSF - don't get me started!
I now have to return to it. HAve a good afternoon everyone.
I think her Downing Street speech was well received. Perhaps it was the self-interested home owners who jumped ship, or who wanted to give her a bloody nose. Remember it was her attempt to grasp the nettle of social care costs that was the turning point.
The right thing to do for the country, the wrong thing to do for her party: something Lab can never be accused of doing.
If the pb massive was right at the time that the dementia tax would leave families better off, then the problem was that the policy was dropped rather than explained and defended. In other words, Lynton Crosby ballsed up the campaign (and tore up "strong and stable" while he was at it). Cronsby's only success was convincing pb Tories it was all Nick and Fiona's fault.
Agree she should have stuck to her guns re dementia tax. Btw who coined that term? I bet they won't be on Tezza's New Year's honours list! As a term it's wrong in so many ways but hard to avoid using.
Bedroom tax as a term was the same, albeit a much crueler measure, that I notice the Troies have not backed down on
Caroline Lucas. Poor strategy to allow your opponents to define your policy, especially when she didn't really understand it herself (otherwise she would have been all for it).
She may have made it stick from this manifesto, but no way did she coin the term. It's been around almost a decade, at least.
Please tell me that is the end of Keaton Jennings' Test career.
If Stoneman and Hameed are unavailable, try Chris Dent.
Boycott, shortly before the wicket: 'I'll be surprised if England don't get a total in excess of 350 on this pitch. It should be easy to bat on. Once the hardness of the ball has gone, it will be very easy-paced...."
Though, if one were being scrupulously fair, Cook has also ridden his luck this morning.
Comments
'Quirky' doesn't do it justice.
I suspect there are social and cultural undercurrents at work as well - the much mentioned WWC may well be moving Conservative in some areas but in London and other southern areas it is trending back Labour.
The evolution of the UKIP vote is fascinating - it started as a swing away from the Conservatives but then picked up support among the WWC from Labour over immigration. The ex-Conservative voters returned to the fold first many going back in 2015 to ensure Cameron's majority (while the ex-Labour vote stayed either UKIP or abstained to get the Conservatives over the line) but in 2017 the remaining UKIP support fragmented again with elements of the ex-Labour WWC vote going Conservative but a larger bloc (especially in the south) swinging Labour.
The right thing to do for the country, the wrong thing to do for her party: something Lab can never be accused of doing.
The question I would like to put to tory PB'ers is: should social care be paid for by those impacted, where they have sufficient assets, e.g by eating into the inheritence they would like to pass on, or should it be paid for as a national NHS-like service (and therefore through taxation - implying taxes will have to rise)?
Temperament is probably the answer.
Root seems to me to be a natural number four - whose job it is to push on the scoring rate. He has extraordinary natural ability, but I don't think has the sheer bloody mindedness required of a genuine number three. It is perhaps the most difficult batting position in cricket, as it requires the mentality of both opener and stroke maker; Root is naturally the latter.
He's batted every position from two to six at test level, and has made runs at three, but presumably knows his own mind on the matter. It seems pretty futile to try to make the captain bat in a position he doesn't appear to want, so England's priority should be finding someone decent to bat first drop.
(And praying that Hameed fulfils his earlier promise.)
What is more to the point is that our political parties haven't changed with that broader change in society, which is fuelling disillusionment with the current order.
Only as long as he remains in office, I think.
Whereas judges he has appointed will be in office for decades.
I would want more 'wealth' taxes over taxes on income, especially on workers, for which i don't think there much scope to raise too much.
I take no pleasure in that, but what an irony it will turn out to be if the Tory Brexiteers succeed in killing off UKIP but as a consequence give Corbyn the keys to No. 10!
I appreciate that many are pleased to see it disappear but the vast majority of those connected with the party are totally relaxed and content.
Bedroom tax as a term was the same, albeit a much crueler measure, that I notice the Troies have not backed down on
So Dawid Malan gets another chance to show he's not good enough for Test cricket.
Inflation (especially in house prices) will bring in more IHT revenue without having to change anything.
At the moment, our tax system fits into neither category. It clobbers those with assets, those with capital, those with income, and those without, at different times and in different ways, and is so opaque even tax lawyers appear not to understand it.
If somebody wished to do something daring then a total top-to-bottom reform of all taxes would be a good start. Simplified IHT, simplified NI, simplified income tax, simplified capital gains tax, abolition of stamp duty, abolishing of graduate taxes (which are in many ways the worst) - and higher upfront rates to pay for them.
However, there is no denying such a move would be very risky and I think could only be done from a position of surplus and economic growth.
Moreover, if one tax really needs sorting in the interests of fairness it's not IHT or any form of post-mortem tax, it's council tax.
It certainly stuck though even the tory press were using it freely (The Torygraph showed it's disdain by putting it in quotes iirc).
Conservative poster before the 2010 election:
However, even allowing for that, I think if a government were seen to be acting fairly people would let them go ahead with it. If it was seen as a grab for the top 1% of earners, or a patent bribe to homeowners in Islington, then there would be a problem.
(Although, I think it was friendly fire that did for the Tories on social care, rather than the Labour attacks.)
A grab for the top 1% of earners would not cause a problem amongst the 99% - the issue with it is whether much could be raised that way. And btw the Islington homeowners you fear might be bribed are in the top 1%!
PS - I meant a grab to dodge tax by the top 1%, or to reduce their burden. Looking at it, that was very unclear and I apologise.
Under a minority government faced with the Brexit puzzle, it's just a pipe dream.
Not for nothing was Lawson the last chancellor to make any real progress in that direction.
(Brown had the opportunity to have a go at it, but zero interest.)
The problem is that even proposing a commission will have a political cost - "party X reopens Death Tax idea".
My secretary's son has just made a capital gain of £350k on a flat in Putney in 3 years, quite an untaxed windfall.
I'm already nervously reminded of Butcher's famous decision to bat on a wet pitch under cloudy skies in 1999 when Atherton scored 11 runs in 8 overs and they were all out for something 150. He never captained England again...
And I see what you mean.
Taxpayers should not be paying a penny to care for an elderly person if they have immediate family who are having overseas holidays, Sky subscriptions, eating out etc.
Might luck be on his side, or is he just using it all up ?
As Ben Hogan acidly commented to a spectator who called him lucky, 'the more I practice the more luck I seem to have.'
Is the main problem that Chavez didn't have the elites murdered would you say?
https://iea.org.uk/publications/taxation-government-spending-and-economic-growth/
A snippet from the summary:
Perhaps a future president might revive it, but these things take ages and the world moves on.
You're absolutely right about the judges though.
If Hilary had won - we could have had a real progressive majority on the Supreme Court.
Out of interest where do you stand on it?
Well I agree on all of that! Achieving improvement is the challenge!
Not just the Supreme Court. Appointments to the rest of the federal courts will be of significance for decades.
This is a pertinent article (Slate is of course a very partial commentator, but their legal coverage is quite good):
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/08/clarence-thomas-legal-vision-is-becoming-a-trump-era-reality.html
You would, in effect, be saying that even though children have no say in whether their parents have them or not, they are still legally responsible for them.
And what happens in situations where parents and their adult children are estranged? Would the child still be legally responsible even though they might not have seen their parents for 20 years?
Would be pretty controversial IMO.
Yep, you can do it with corporation tax as well, but then thats been spent by labour already ten times over. Although I think reducing CT below 20% by the tories was a poor choice.
Given the evident disarray of the Democrats the question is really where do the Republicans go next? The candidates who Trump beat so comprehensively in the Primaries did not exactly inspire.
It's a disgrace really that so many old people are sitting on NHS wards (when they aren't actually "sick" they are just "old") because there's nobody to look after them when they may have 2-3 adult children, adult grandchildren and even adult great grandchildren, etc...
Morally its appalling and I could never abandon my mother like that... But changing the law to make children responsible for parents seems fraught with problems and dangers.
And it's not as though it was just Trump opposed - Congress was sceptical I think.
Clarence Thomas scares me a bit I have to admit.
Life is about choices. Do more than 99% of the world's countries for charity or fund our old properly. I think that I know what has more votes.
It is a fantastic film. Up there with Jarman & Davies, IMO.
If Stoneman and Hameed are unavailable, try Chris Dent.
(I remember attending a 'Building Schools for the Future' roadshow when a school governor, which must have cost several grand to put on, to no great purpose other than PR. Shortly thereafter, the program was scrapped...)
GMB union suggests curbing free movement is more important than retaining single market membership
The leader of the GMB union, the third largest in the UK, has suggested that curbing free movement of people is a more important priority that remaining in the single market. Tim Roache, General Secretary of GMB, told the Today programme on BBC Radio 4 that the outcome of the Brexit referendum was due to frustration at high levels of migration which had driven down wages. He also suggested that it may be possible to negotiate ongoing membership of the single market while tackling freedom of movement. However, he said that the UK did not need to remain in the single market to retain many of the benefits, adding, “People, companies, countries in the EU want to trade with the UK — there’s no doubt about that. What we need to do if we’re out of the single market is use that as an opportunity for positive investment.” The Times
Please ignore previous post!
In 1997 the grant for this was approved. In 1998 GM schools were abolished and this grant went. The LEA refused to release any extra money without giving a reason.
In 2008 BSF put borrowed money into the school which created a new art block, a new classroom on the English corridor and a new fitness centre in the PE department, re-jigging the changing rooms at the same time. The school budget is still under strain paying for this
In 2014 I briefly worked at Newent. There was still no sixth form centre and those temporary classrooms were still there. For all I know - indeed, given what's happened since, more than likely - they are still there.
Labour's failure on educational budgeting in a microcosm.
As for BSF - don't get me started!
I now have to return to it. HAve a good afternoon everyone.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/jul/13/mentalhealth.health
'I'll be surprised if England don't get a total in excess of 350 on this pitch. It should be easy to bat on. Once the hardness of the ball has gone, it will be very easy-paced...."
Though, if one were being scrupulously fair, Cook has also ridden his luck this morning.