Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Tick tock. Betting on the date of the UK’s exit from the EU
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Tick tock. Betting on the date of the UK’s exit from the EU
Can you hear it? That is the sound of inevitability. Shambolic though the government’s preparations have been for Brexit, failing to explain its proposals to the public, the EU or even itself, the time to exit continues to approach. When the government gave notice under Article 50, a two year timetable was set in motion. That will expire at 11pm (GMT) on Friday 29 March 2019. Nothing the government has done or not done since then has altered that timetable.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
https://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/965574646228836352
https://twitter.com/KantarPublic/status/965553035127808000
Were I an unkind person I would point out that last year BJO was vociferous in attacking the Tories for suggesting that rich people should use their houses to pay for their care. Always easy to say that someone else should pay; much harder to agree to a tax increase when it affects you or when attacking your political opponent for suggesting such a thing gives you a political advantage.
But I am not unkind so here is my answer.
The first and most important thing to do is to work out which services the state should do. Those which can be provided by the private sector should be. EU states have much to teach us in this regard.
Second, people should be told that they need to take much more responsibility for their own lives, not expect so much to be provided "free" by the state. The phrase "there is no such thing as a free lunch" needs to be used more widely. So, I would make it clear that people need to contribute more out of their own assets - if people can afford foreign holidays they can afford to save more for their pension or rainy days etc.
Third, I would be utterly ruthless in what we spend public money on. Waste, inefficiencies, pointless consultants etc. Impose and enforce a cap on public sector salaries. I know everyone says this but value for money is essential, especially if you are going to ask people to pay more.
So, some ideas off the top of my head:-
- Income tax will need to go up - and not just on those earning over £85,000. Everyone - including Mr and Mrs Average and those at the bottom end - will need to pay more income tax.
- Elimination of quite a lot of VAT exemptions.
- I would reduce the rate of inheritance tax but make it payable on a wider range of assets and eliminate all (most?) of the exemptions so that there is much less incentive to try and avoid it. Hopefully that would raise more from more people
- If you are working you should pay NI so I would impose it on those working past pensionable age.
- Benefits to pensioners such as TV licences should be removed or made taxable.
- I would make all public sector pensions similar to those in the private sector i.e. paid from a fund to which the employee contributes and which pays out benefits based on how well the fund has grown.
- Oh and I would have a policy which says that if you have assets, including your home, above a certain minimum level, you should expect to use those assets to pay for care in old age.
- Increase the number of council tax bands to capture houses at the top end
- CGT at some low level on the sale of property
- More charges for local services.
- Ensure that people who use our "free" services without any entitlement to do so are actually charged for them.
- Sort out pension tax reliefs
- Place a limit on how much tax relief charitable giving gets
I await the brickbats.....
Although I am on "Yes" it is this one that gets me. An extension of a few weeks only. A bit of brinksmanship.
However instead I think I will just trade out closer to the time when it is clear the other 3 aren't on the table
Remember 2 out the 3 last general elections has seen Labour underestimated in the polls.
Time is running out for them. It is the loud, unstoppable inexorable ticking clock of democracy.
But Corbyn won a similar number of seats as Gordon Brown in 201o -one of Labour's worst ever election results.
The power of wishful thinking is driving this. Long may it last.
Governments are supposed to be unpopular than oppositions in non election years, yet still all that Hard Labour can achieve is to be level pegging.
On their definition we may well not have left, even if the government proclaim otherwise. That seems to me the risk in this bet. Otherwise, if the government's word is to be taken on it, it seems to be the no brainer that Alastair has been good enough to point out.
Goodness, having typed that I realise what a mess our tax system is. Where was George Osborne and his 'Tax simplification initiative'? The only thing he did was eliminate form P9D.
And of course, if you're married (and get the Marriage allowance transfer) and claim child benefit like I do, the rates are even more convoluted.
Long, detailed and generally excellent post.
I think one of the things we need to understand is why the public finances are in such poor state and that this cascades to poor services.
I think we're spending too much on welfare - all types. One of the reported reasons that this country is so attractive for migrants is that the benefits system is so generous. Coupled with that is the, to my mind, extremely open immigration policy. I don't see why extended families can receive preferential treatment over the so called high value migrants.
Why can we allow aunties, uncles etc just because there is a relation living here.
We also need to look very seriously at health and social care, removing all non essential treatments from NHS provision. Why is IVF available on the NHS for example?
I actually agreed with the so called dementia tax and feel it is a way to go, without destroying some form of inheritance provision. Either that or have an affordable insurance scheme for long term social care.
If we enact increased taxation, we should also have improved quality of provision of service, with proper scrutiny of the providers.
However I can see why money is going on No. I think it is a 50/50 bet.
The HOL is sure to remove the 29th March 2019 as a fixed date in the EU Withdrawal Bill and the HOC will agree when it returns. It is only there as a sop to Brexiteers who are fearful of any slippage. It damages our negotiating position for obvious reasons and is inconsistent with "the best deal for Britain".
Any actual slippage will be small, - eight weeks at the most to avoid a clash with the next Euro Elections due on 23-26 May 2019. But I think it is quite likely that the slippage will happen. There will be contingency plans in place on both sides. We will need it and the EU will agree to it to avoid a crash out.
If an eight week slippage occurs, it puts pressure on the transition period which the EU wants to finish at end 2020 for admin reasons to coincide with their five year budget period. The transition period is already recognised on all sides as too short, and if the EU lifts the admin barrier, then there may be a desire on both sides to extend the transition to something more sensible.
Yes the clock is ticking and the UK is the party under pressure as the fallback no deal is recognised by government to be a disaster.
However, we would probably only NOT leave on that date the EU if either the government changes its mind or the process is subject to a legal challenge. Even a technical delay, which is quite likely, will probably be dealt with using an interim version of the Transition Agreement rather than delaying the exit date.
So yes, unlikely not to happen.
- No more overseas military adventures unless we are directly attacked
- Cut foreign aid spending to a similar level to France and Germany
- Legalise and tax cannabis on a similar basis to cigarettes
- Severe cuts to the large number of quangos. Why does Ofwat need 220 staff?
- Organisations in receipt of government funding need to be seen to be frugal - no central London HQs
Only a sub-sample of 170 or so, but it indicates a 20% swing from November 2017 in Scotland from SCon to SNP??
On closer inspection the number of Don't Knows fluctuates wildly.
Either you are already in this market or, if not, you are unpersuaded by the arguments here for Yes.
That means more tax for the elderly better off. Tough. Many of those who retired on final salary pension schemes have far more disposable income as well as lower outgoings than those with young children trying to buy their first home.
I also think we have reached the limits of taking people in work out of tax. Far too many people are being incentivised to vote for higher taxes in the confident expectation that they will not pay them. There is an attraction to avoiding the complication of taxes for those who are significant recipients of in work benefits but given how far up the income scale these still go we cannot avoid that.
The more I think about the mess that is our tax system the more I want Michael Gove as Chancellor.
What could possibly go wrong
14:06 A new political party hoping to halt Brexit and run candidates in all 650 constituencies at the next general election was launched in Westminster today in an optimistic attempt to capitalise on what its leaders said was disenchantment with established political parties.
Renew has no high-profile candidates or donors and is led by three principals who have almost no prior political experience, although the philosopher AC Grayling was present at today’s launch, saying he was “rooting for” the party...
https://www.theguardian.com/education/live/2018/feb/19/theresa-may-to-set-out-tuition-fee-proposals-politics-live
(I think she will agree the terms).
I think it entirely possible that once there he would horrify many of his supporters.
Is it far fetched to see him raising taxes on wealth significantly? Or slashing taxes on income for high earners? The range of possibilities is large I reckon.
So yes this always tends to be an issue ><
We should rely upon our friends in the EU to process the refugees from that failed state rather than paying money to look after them there?
Well its a view.
And I think you should also reflect on why attempts to curb the number of Quangos have so repeatedly failed. If you are going to have private provision of public services their provision has to be regulated effectively. You can have arguments about where the cost of that regulation should lie, you can argue about whether it is effective but anyone seriously arguing after 2007 that we don't need regulation of the delivery of services by business really hasn't been paying attention.
The effect is to raise money almost imperceptibly from people who are well off (yes if you have £100 million you'll pay nearly £300,000, but on that bank balance you'll say meh), in a way that's harder to evade than income tax (because if you live here you have visible property here too that you can't move to the Cayman Islands); it also discourages people from just leaving wealth piled up in a current account and vacant property/unused land and nudges them into doing something with it, if only making it available for borrowing by someone else. I never met anyone in Switzerland, even rock-ribbed conservatives, who felt this unfair.
At the next general election Corbyn will be proposing to raise the top rate of income tax and inheritance tax and the Tories to keep the rates as they are
Option 1) Keep dangling a harder Brexit as a carrot to keep the hardliners on board long enough to make the process of a soft Brexit irreversible.
Option 2) Exhaust their opposition and then put the deal to the public in a dramatic gesture at the end of the process. An exact mirror of Cameron, but this time where people who say the deal isn't good enough will be boxed in to either swallowing their objections or supporting Remain.
As for Quangos, I'm not saying get rid of them altogether, but you don't have to look hard to find examples of waste. For example:
@VitaeJobs
2h2 hours ago
More
"Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements."
That is a one-off action: it decides. There was an exceptionally high-powered court case which determined what the constitutional requirements were. These were then met. Whether or not the government, parliament or people subsequently decide that their *political* requirements have changed does not affect whether or not A50 notification was lawfully given.
Plus remember state pensions are unfunded by governments and they don't include the liability for future pension payments in the public debt figures.
For public services to stay as they are we need to raise more tax.
All parties need to think about that, or start advocating for reduced public service provision.
In fact, I wonder if they'll have to wear yellow hi-viz jackets hen they leave and to be escorted by a few teachers along the road.
https://twitter.com/piris_jc/status/962802993665101824
There are at least two potentially large flies in the ointment.
1. Getting a deal. This will likely go well past the October preferred deadline, at least to the December summit and quite possibly well into 2019. None of the governments, or the Commission, will want Britain to leave without a deal but neither will it be quickly settled. There are a lot of interests and there are a lot of details.
2. The European Parliament. i don't expect Westminster to cause serious difficulties. It hasn't so far and come the crunch vote, the stakes are so high that I'd expect virtually all Con MPs to fall into line, together with the DUP. If there are rebels, they'll likely be outnumbered by Labour ones, if Labour chooses to oppose what's been agreed. however, the EP is a different matter and Verhofstadt it a prat. The MEPs don't have the same accountability to their public and with only weeks to go before the EP elections, might do something silly. Sorting that out could necessitate an extension of weeks.
While i don't think that either of these are particularly likely - in the case of the former, a lot can be kicked into the transition phase - I don't think the combined chance (plus failure for any other reason) is less than 20%.
My view is that on (a) the HoL will send back lots of amendments (some of which will be accepted by the HoC, and some not) but won't affect the date or the Bill, which will become law, (b) the final deal will pass the HoC - the vote will be used as leverage, (c) May will survive (just) because it's too late now and there is finally some movement on the deal, and (d) neither the EU or UK want to defer Brexit.
I'd say it's a 70-75% of end of March next year (a probability that will approach 85-90% by the end of the year) so, allowing for a bit of risk, I would back down to aroundabout 1.3-1.4 on Betfair myself.
I await his future pro-Leave posts with much anticipation.
The link to your job didn't work. I fully support VFM and the budgets of Quangos need to be carefully monitored. But they also need to be adequately resourced to do their jobs.
It's hypothetical because the government won't withdraw its application.
Has she announced a policy U-turn followed by "Nothing has changed! Nothing has changed!"?
on any significant income and 42% if they are doing well, on top of which they're paying 2-5% gross contributions for pensions.
Most people really struggle to have much left each month over after paying council tax on top
(another £1k+) utility bills, food, mortgage/rent and transport costs. I don't think it's fair
at all for the State to add to the burden.
We need to get away from the idea you spend the last 20 years of your life "idle" - the world has moved on, and we can't afford it - and we generally need to tax assets and net worth more, and income less.
Just one query: you say that it discourages people from leaving wealth in a current account. Why would it do that? You'd pay the tax whether it was in a current account or in an ISA invested in shares. The only way it would discourage such use is if some other use rendered the wealth exempt from the tax. Is that how it works in Switzerland?
I had understood that the point of such a tax is that it is on all wealth, regardless of its use.
Maybe I have misunderstood.
The only other point I would make is that, like council tax, you might want to have a higher rate for those worth very much more than £2 mio i.e. those with say, £10 mio or £20 mio worth of assets.
The other question is whether a wealth tax such as this would be in addition to CGT, council tax or a replacement for it.
Tax simplification - as other posters have pointed out already - is key both to making the system fairer and more efficient.
My redlines would be: no-one turfed out of their family home, or property, against their will. I would baseline such a tax to a property value index, reviewed annually. I want to see the super-rich and "tax-efficient" investment portfolios paying more tax, not ordinary families.
I will ring Jezza