Those on about £60,000 have been insulated most from austerity measures. Those on over £150,000 have been affected worst.
MPs' salaries, curiously, are just over £60,000. A happy coincidence no doubt.
Not entirely sure that is true antifrank. You have to remember that the lunacy of the last government stretched to people earning more than £60k a year getting WFTC. That has been stopped. And they have lost their child benefit which is marginally more important to them than much higher earners. And they pay more tax.
I do accept that almost every aspect of Coalition policy, other than the 45p rate, has increased the tax burden on those earning £150K+ and that overall they have contributed the most to deficit reduction.
Worth pointing out though David that if they have three children and are both working they still get Child care allowance of over £2300 a year until earnings exceed £65,000.
Again I am not sure that is desirable or sustainable.
Once again I agree Richard. Brown was determined to turn the whole country into benefit recipients. I think the thinking was that if we all got something out we would all be invested in it. The result of the last election shows it was not an entirely stupid idea, at least politically.
Economically, of course, it was plain idiotic. Having the state take ever larger chunks of our income so that they could, with characteristic inefficiency and cost, give it back again is just nuts.
Tories believe in a smaller state. That means less tax and the help given by the state being focussed on the poor and the genuinely needy. This means demolishing Brown's empires and traps.
I would expect in the next government, frankly whoever wins, that WTC entitlement will be cut back to nearer the average wage, pensioner freebies will stop being universal and as a country we will start to focus more on what we really need to spend. We may do it a bit faster under the tories but the direction of travel seems inevitable. We still have £100bn a year to find.
Thanks for the personal attacks - it doesn't become you but I'll let it ride. I'll ask again: what rate of tax are you paying? You seem very unwilling to say.
You should read antifrank's short write up for the Guardian from a few years back. He is one of the good ones, no need to get so uppity.
I think the respense to the "sluts"comment by both the media and Farage is a ludicrous overreaction. In context, it's just a comment on what a couple of women had said to him and clearly in jest which was how it was received. Seems the media is desperate to savage UKIP and were waiting to pounce on anything they could whether it was actually offensive or not.
I'm surprised by Farage's response, UKIP's appeal to many is their non PC approach. I would have expected him to say it's all a media witchunt and this country is a sadder place if you can't make a joke like that without being castigated. They are not going to win votes from the sort of people who are offended by that comment by reacting as they have but they may lose votes for pandering to the media's PC narrative. It is worrying to see politicians sacked by parties for utter trivia because there is some media firestorm or other, (I forget the name of the tory in the 2010 election campaign), I wish they would grow a pair and face the media down but none have the gumption. I would have expected Farage to be braver as it plays to UKIP's anti mainstream politics appeal.
On the other hand the white faces brochure reflects a fault with UKIP and Bloom's reaction to being challanged about it was ridiculous and made him look a complete joke. I doubt that will lose UKIP votes though, unlike the earlier issue.
One little mouthy Kipper is hardly media coverage moving against UKIP.
Farage destroyed.
After plot.
Its curious. It has
Whilst wishing of an impact on our future status than the 2014 Euros.
A vote for UKIP in the Euro elections 2014 is not a vote for Britain's next PM. It is a vote, as it says on the tin, for MEPs.
I accept that a strong vote for UKIP in 2014 may have a small and indirect effect on the GE in 2015. A UKIP win could make EM promise an in/out referendum on the EU. If that happened, and he became PM, the tory party could then unite behind the 'BOO' campaign. An in/out referendum under a labour govt would be far more likely to produce the result you claim to want: a win for out.
Well that's how it looks from your side of the fence. From mine it looks like Farage really only ever targets one party in a GE and as a result gives us more Europhile governments every time. His rhetoric against Cameron ( for whom I have no real sympathy ) plays as badly with me as Cameron's fuitcake jibes play with you; it's pointless, it makes me not want to vote for him and it indirectly insults a whole spectrum of voters whose support he needs.
As for the theory well its bollox, UKIP will have no influence on Labour unless it takes huge chunks of labour votes from them. It remains to be seen if UKIP can do what it claims in Northern England and Scotland. But as for uniting behind a BOO campaign yestrday simply confirms to me what I have long suspected that UKIP is in no fit state to run a BOO campaign. IMO the campaign if it is to succeed will rely heavily on Tory eurosceptic MPs who of course are exactly the people whose numbers you will minimise.
This is not an electoral strategy I buy in to, it's very Continental shall we say. You want to smash the system and to build a new one; every time that happens the people doing the smashing lose control of events. The UKs history and strength is one of organic change and ultimately that's still going to be our best way of getting a sensible relationship with Europe.
No single person (whether OAP or 18yo) and no married couple or family, should be receiving ANY cash State benefits if they earn over average wages *for their area*. Which is why benefits should be entirely localised. People would then migrate to those areas with highest benefits - and drive them down.
We simply need to get away from recycling borrowed and taxed income as benefits - it's economically and socially insane.
Weaning people off might take a decade - but cold turkey treatment would be far more effective, efficient - AND popular (since it would be linked to, for example, raising the PA threshold to min wage levels)
There's a profound misconception that just because polling says 'do you want to keep this 'free' hand-out?' (yes, obviously) people are opposed, in principle, to having it end. What they object to is it being taken away *from them* whilst similar hand-outs continue to the (in their view) undeserving, aka 'benefit scroungers'.
That those having CB on a family income of over £26k are themselves 'benefit scroungers' does not cross their mind.
Mr. Bobajob, Child Tax Charge? Sorry, I don't mean to sound like a 7 year old asking "Why?" twenty-three times in a row.
Bobajobb doesn't get child benefit. He is apparently silly enough to think that's a tax charge.
A 70% marginal rate is a charge, a very stupid one admittedly, and much higher than the marginal rates you'll pay.
There is nothing stupid about taking money off those that can do nothing about it, where there is minimal possibility of corrective action or short term changes in behaviour and where the victims are relatively affluent. It might not be popular but it's brilliant.
NB it is popular among all but selfish affluent parents.
Not only have you lost every point on this argument (the tax charge isn't a tax: it is) (low income families are subsidising me: they aren't), you have still failed to tell me what rate you are paying. Let me put it in simple terms - how many pence in the pound on any pay rise will you pay to the government? As someone who earns around ten times what I earn, and has no children to support, I'd like to see exactly how "unselfish" you are.
I'm not the one bleating about my contribution to austerity measures. I've been hit a lot and that's right. You've been hit a little and that's right too. But you're staggeringly unwilling to accept that the withdrawal of a benefit that is a nice to have not a need to have is a reasonable measure in tough times. Candidly, you come across as selfish and infantile.
The group who have much more to complain about is the poorest. They have been hit very hard and that's very tough on them.
Thanks for the personal attacks - it doesn't become you but I'll let it ride. I'll ask again: what rate of tax are you paying? You seem very unwilling to say.
Because the money has been collected from top earners in different ways. It's a stupid question.
It's only a stupid question because you don't want to answer it.
Thanks for the personal attacks - it doesn't become you but I'll let it ride. I'll ask again: what rate of tax are you paying? You seem very unwilling to say.
You should read antifrank's short write up for the Guardian from a few years back. He is one of the good ones, no need to get so uppity.
I read it - I have no personal issue with him. He, however, thinks I am selfish and infantile.
I absolutely agree we should be moving towards taxing wealth rather than earnings.
Taxing wealth is taxing assets that have been bought out of already taxed income. I'm not sure as a country that can of worms needs to be opened so overtly. Council tax should be as far as we go down a wealth tax, even there I would prefer a local income tax.
The best I could think of would be a 1% tax on family property portfolios worth over £5m. That kind of tax would only target the actually wealthy, but usually the properties they own are leased and they would pay tax on that income. It's not as easy as saying "tax wealth". There are too many unintended consequences from it that need to be mitigated.
What Tories "believe" and what they do must be two different things then because every Tory govt since 1979 has increased benefit spending. In the case of this govt they have deliberately chosen to maintain large state benefit spending to protect their pensioner vote.
You see Tim, every Labour government in history has left the incoming tory government with higher unemployment to deal with. What is a caring and compassionate party to do? They seek to protect the poor but cut back on the stupidities and blatant bribes that the last government left. They reduce the headcount of the state to something like more manageable levels (we will have a reduction of about 1m in this Parliament but Brown was an extreme case) and try to focus spending where it is really needed.
And Labour oppose every cut. They are not with the public on this one. Not at all.
It is you that is ignorant. The Child Benefit Tax Charge is a tax. Even the government admits it's a tax. You must have forgotten to tell me what rate of income tax you are paying.
Just asked Kevin Maguire on Twitter whether he has featured in the McBride excerpts yet. Must be only a matter of time since he was ppart of Brown's magic circle.
Only someone as uber privileged as Rachel Reeves could think £60k isn't seen as rich. She should ask the good people of Leeds, Bradford, Manchester, Liverpool or anywhere north of there. Suspect they will have a very different view. Up here in the Highlands, few senior managers or company directors earn £60k.
Was interested to read that Reeves husband was Gordon Brown's private secretary and speech-writer at one time. Another link into the spider's web!
Well that's just anti London prejudice yet again from you because here in London and around £60k is far from rich. Fair play to Reeves - she is right. Families with a main earner on £60k and young children are being taxed at 70% marginal rates, have huge mortgage costs and astronomical nursery fees. London is a different world - we drive the economy for the whole UK, work the longest hours in Europe and are told by you and your ilk we are "rich" for our troubles.
Londoners are tossers think they should get more than everybody else and deserve all they get, if you want to stay in the dump suck it up and stop stealing money from the rest of the country to support your supposed Nirvana.
I heard the UKIP spokesman talking about fracking yesterday morning before the nonsense started. Putting aside the question of whether we can afford to have a wealth fund when we still have such a horrendous deficit I thought he talked a great deal of sense.
My sense, or more likely my prejudice, is that green taxes on energy are going to become a seriously hot issue in the next few years. We are seeing this already in Germany and we are not far behind.
Combining it with the theme of this thread green taxes are a morally obnoxious tax on the poor.
Good morning and the Bloom videos from yesterday are priceless. My favourite was his attack on a BBC journalist, hitting him with the conference programme and accusing him of being racist.
To be fair to Bloom, he actually had something of a point.
Crick's instinct was to look at the cover and say 'there is no one black, that's wrong'.
Bloom should have responding something along the lines - 'well I judge people based on what they do, say and believe, not the colour of their skin'.
But he didn't - he lost his cool and looked like a complete idiot.
Just asked Kevin Maguire on Twitter whether he has featured in the McBride excerpts yet. Must be only a matter of time since he was ppart of Brown's magic circle.
Only someone as uber privileged as Rachel Reeves could think £60k isn't seen as rich. She should ask the good people of Leeds, Bradford, Manchester, Liverpool or anywhere north of there. Suspect they will have a very different view. Up here in the Highlands, few senior managers or company directors earn £60k.
Was interested to read that Reeves husband was Gordon Brown's private secretary and speech-writer at one time. Another link into the spider's web!
Well that's just anti London prejudice yet again from you because here in London and around £60k is far from rich. Fair play to Reeves - she is right. Families with a main earner on £60k and young children are being taxed at 70% marginal rates, have huge mortgage costs and astronomical nursery fees. London is a different world - we drive the economy for the whole UK, work the longest hours in Europe and are told by you and your ilk we are "rich" for our troubles.
Londoners are tossers think they should get more than everybody else and deserve all they get, if you want to stay in the dump suck it up and stop stealing money from the rest of the country to support your supposed Nirvana.
I think the respense to the "sluts"comment by both the media and Farage is a ludicrous overreaction. In context, it's just a comment on what a couple of women had said to him and clearly in jest which was how it was received. Seems the media is desperate to savage UKIP and were waiting to pounce on anything they could whether it was actually offensive or not.
I'm surprised by Farage's response, UKIP's appeal to many is their non PC approach. I would have expected him to say it's all a media witchunt and this country is a sadder place if you can't make a joke like that without being castigated. They are not going to win votes from the sort of people who are offended by that comment by reacting as they have but they may lose votes for pandering to the media's PC narrative. It is worrying to see politicians sacked by parties for utter trivia because there is some media firestorm or other, (I forget the name of the tory in the 2010 election campaign), I wish they would grow a pair and face the media down but none have the gumption. I would have expected Farage to be braver as it plays to UKIP's anti mainstream politics appeal.
On the other hand the white faces brochure reflects a fault with UKIP and Bloom's reaction to being challanged about it was ridiculous and made him look a complete joke. I doubt that will lose UKIP votes though, unlike the earlier issue.
It's not important in itself. The problem is that Bloom just makes us look fundamentally unserious.
Good morning and the Bloom videos from yesterday are priceless. My favourite was his attack on a BBC journalist, hitting him with the conference programme and accusing him of being racist.
To be fair to Bloom, he actually had something of a point.
Crick's instinct was to look at the cover and say 'there is no one black, that's wrong'.
Bloom should have responding something along the lines - 'well I judge people based on what they do, say and believe, not the colour of their skin'.
But he didn't - he lost his cool and looked like a complete idiot.
That is exactly what Bloom said to Crick. I agree he's funny, and for 78 quite amazing. He had me chuckling a few times. The media want the public to adopt their faux PC morality, but they are unlikely to succeed. Humour is not so easy to regulate.
Just asked Kevin Maguire on Twitter whether he has featured in the McBride excerpts yet. Must be only a matter of time since he was part of Brown's magic circle.
Only someone as uber privileged as Rachel Reeves could think £60k isn't seen as rich. She should ask the good people of Leeds, Bradford, Manchester, Liverpool or anywhere north of there. Suspect they will have a very different view. Up here in the Highlands, few senior managers or company directors earn £60k.
Was interested to read that Reeves husband was Gordon Brown's private secretary and speech-writer at one time. Another link into the spider's web!
She was absolutely spot on. To any aspiring, hard working person £60k is not a matter of dreams, it is achievable.
What you deliberately did not mention was that her £60k comments continued and disclosed that Labour will not increase any taxes on people earning upto £60k because , quite rightly, they are not rich !
And having declared that anyone earning £60k is rich, the Tories can hardly criticise raising taxes for people earning substantially more than that. They can have a technical argument about laffer curves etc, but that may not be too effective a weapon.
I don't get your logic.
Having declared that they are rich is a reasonable case why they should pay more tax (which they already do, substantially, both in % terms and in absolute amounts)*
It's not an argument for why taxes on the rich should increase further from this point. (It's just a non-sequiteur)
8% rise in British Gas bills; other suppliers sure to follow suit. That's any marriage tax break taken care of for most couples. And those who aren't married have to find another £100 or so from somewhere.
I think the respense to the "sluts"comment by both the media and Farage is a ludicrous overreaction. In context, it's just a comment on what a couple of women had said to him and clearly in jest which was how it was received. Seems the media is desperate to savage UKIP and were waiting to pounce on anything they could whether it was actually offensive or not.
I'm surprised by Farage's response, UKIP's appeal to many is their non PC approach. I would have expected him to say it's all a media witchunt and this country is a sadder place if you can't make a joke like that without being castigated. They are not going to win votes from the sort of people who are offended by that comment by reacting as they have but they may lose votes for pandering to the media's PC narrative. It is worrying to see politicians sacked by parties for utter trivia because there is some media firestorm or other, (I forget the name of the tory in the 2010 election campaign), I wish they would grow a pair and face the media down but none have the gumption. I would have expected Farage to be braver as it plays to UKIP's anti mainstream politics appeal.
On the other hand the white faces brochure reflects a fault with UKIP and Bloom's reaction to being challanged about it was ridiculous and made him look a complete joke. I doubt that will lose UKIP votes though, unlike the earlier issue.
It's not important in itself. The problem is that Bloom just makes us look fundamentally unserious.
I'm afraid I'd go a bit further Sean. If there is a referendum every mainstream poliitician will now be asking what else will they pull out of the hat and do I want to share a BOO platform with a Godfrey Bloom or Nikki Sinclair ? UKIP have made themselves seem a dicy partner for ordinary UK politicians. On yesterday's showing they'd lose.
These days income is only one part of the equation. If, when and where you bought your house can be as big a determinant on your quality of life.
Someone one on £50k can easily have less disposable income than someone on £30k and live in worse house.
It's a nightmare for policy makers.
I've not thought about this in detail, but would there be an argument for regional income tax rates?
So long as there aren't that many it should be possible for the HMRC to manage ( may be you would need an arbitrary date that it is where you are living as of X date or something per year)
Of course there would be anomalies at the boundaries of regions, but that would work itself out pretty quickly in house prices / rental rates.
But that could be a way to take into account something of the cost of living?
8% rise in British Gas bills; other suppliers sure to follow suit. That's any marriage tax break taken care of for most couples. And those who aren't married have to find another £100 or so from somewhere.
And how did Ed Miliband help bills when he was energy secretary? Did he put systems in place to reduce prices, or to increase them?
(And that is leaving aside the fact he did f'all for energy security)
His time at DECC is one of the reasons I think Ed Miliband is unsuitable to be PM.
But Rachel Reeves' comments are important. They signal that Labour would not plan to raise taxes substantially which in turn means that it would plan to spend at similar levels to the current Government. Its spending commitments will need to be rationed carefully.
Unless it is planning to raise business taxes a fair bit.
Osborne is going to leave office spending 44% of GDP, there is absolutely no need for Labour to spend more than Osborne, in 12 out of their 13 years in office before the crisis hit they spent less than that.
The key will be to reduce welfare spending rather than increasing it as Thatcher, Major and Cameron did. and the key to that is moving from housing benefit to housebuilding, and a living wage rather than subsidising low pay.
Can you explain exactly how a living wage would work in practice?
I still don't understand how increasing the cost of labour will increase the number of jobs available.
Mr. Jonathan, on food banks it's important to note these are new and that their use has rapidly increased since their relatively recent introduction. This cannot be blamed on any single party because they haven't yet reached full capacity (ie more people, every year, have needed/wanted to use them than there has been capacity to cater to). Only when we reach the ceiling will we be able to assess how economic circumstances are affecting those at the lower end.
Morris , however in a country as wealthy as the UK it is a sad indictment on UK that we have so much poverty and need food banks whilst the rich are just grabbing more and more. UK is sick at the core.
I'll be generous, and allow that 60k in most places outside of London makes you very comfortable, if not rich. Surby states that 60k is achievable with hard work. How? Is he implying that the vast majority of the population who don't make anywhere near that aren't working hard enough? There is no one in my social circle who makes 60k alone, although there will be some couples who make that combined. It's a matter of public record that my salary is £28,199. Setting aside the arguments about marginal tax rates and benefits, I wouldn't be moaning about that 60 grand.
Oh, and Yorkcity, if you're around, from previous thread, 1) Don't fall for the myth about "firepersons" and their shift plans and second jobs. In my brigade alone, there are at least 5 different shift plans on operational stations, and you don't get to choose, you work the plan that the station runs. 2) Genuinely, in my experience, only about a quarter of "fire persons" have a regular second job, and if they do, so what? It ain't illegal to work in this country, last time I checked. Anyway it'll help us get to that magic 60k.
Mr. Jonathan, on food banks it's important to note these are new and that their use has rapidly increased since their relatively recent introduction. This cannot be blamed on any single party because they haven't yet reached full capacity (ie more people, every year, have needed/wanted to use them than there has been capacity to cater to). Only when we reach the ceiling will we be able to assess how economic circumstances are affecting those at the lower end.
Morris , however in a country as wealthy as the UK it is a sad indictment on UK that we have so much poverty and need food banks whilst the rich are just grabbing more and more. UK is sick at the core.
No food banks in Scotland then, SNP government and all that ?
Mr. Jonathan, on food banks it's important to note these are new and that their use has rapidly increased since their relatively recent introduction. This cannot be blamed on any single party because they haven't yet reached full capacity (ie more people, every year, have needed/wanted to use them than there has been capacity to cater to). Only when we reach the ceiling will we be able to assess how economic circumstances are affecting those at the lower end.
Morris , however in a country as wealthy as the UK it is a sad indictment on UK that we have so much poverty and need food banks whilst the rich are just grabbing more and more. UK is sick at the core.
What would your solution be? What would you change to make things more equitable?
Good morning and the Bloom videos from yesterday are priceless. My favourite was his attack on a BBC journalist, hitting him with the conference programme and accusing him of being racist.
To be fair to Bloom, he actually had something of a point.
Crick's instinct was to look at the cover and say 'there is no one black, that's wrong'.
Bloom should have responding something along the lines - 'well I judge people based on what they do, say and believe, not the colour of their skin'.
But he didn't - he lost his cool and looked like a complete idiot.
"Mate of make white folks angry Woolas" is a poisonous dwarf . Bloom got it exactly right in calling him a racist .
8% rise in British Gas bills; other suppliers sure to follow suit. That's any marriage tax break taken care of for most couples. And those who aren't married have to find another £100 or so from somewhere.
And how did Ed Miliband help bills when he was energy secretary? Did he put systems in place to reduce prices, or to increase them?
(And that is leaving aside the fact he did f'all for energy security)
His time at DECC is one of the reasons I think Ed Miliband is unsuitable to be PM.
I completely agree but the sad truth is that Huhne and Davey have been no better than Ed was.
As I said the other day energy policy is the biggest single failure of the Coalition. A government properly focussed on our economic interests would have (a) stopped the green taxes driving up costs for the poor (b) stopped wasting so much time and effort on marginal suppliers like windfarms and focussed on our need for new power stations (c) driven through planning and development for new nuclear to replace the old and (d) moved 10X as fast on fracking.
We will pay a high price for the delusions of that department.
But Rachel Reeves' comments are important. They signal that Labour would not plan to raise taxes substantially which in turn means that it would plan to spend at similar levels to the current Government. Its spending commitments will need to be rationed carefully.
Unless it is planning to raise business taxes a fair bit.
Osborne is going to leave office spending 44% of GDP, there is absolutely no need for Labour to spend more than Osborne, in 12 out of their 13 years in office before the crisis hit they spent less than that.
The key will be to reduce welfare spending rather than increasing it as Thatcher, Major and Cameron did. and the key to that is moving from housing benefit to housebuilding, and a living wage rather than subsidising low pay.
Can you explain exactly how a living wage would work in practice?
I still don't understand how increasing the cost of labour will increase the number of jobs available.
I don't know if it caught your attention but we now have our first female bishop, time for Welby to play catch up ;-)
One little mouthy Kipper is hardly media coverage moving against UKIP.
It's not the incident it's the reaction (although the reaction isn't over yet so could end up positive).
It's not quite the incident or the reaction but that Bloom's so-called joke as good as told half the population not to vote UKIP. You'd think that with all the fuss around the centenary of Emily Davison's death at the Derby, he'd have known women have the vote now.
So if the sin in question is being nasty to women what's more important, Bloom making a sexist joke or the political and media class covering this up?
No single person (whether OAP or 18yo) and no married couple or family, should be receiving ANY cash State benefits if they earn over average wages *for their area*. Which is why benefits should be entirely localised. People would then migrate to those areas with highest benefits - and drive them down.
We simply need to get away from recycling borrowed and taxed income as benefits - it's economically and socially insane.
Weaning people off might take a decade - but cold turkey treatment would be far more effective, efficient - AND popular (since it would be linked to, for example, raising the PA threshold to min wage levels)
There's a profound misconception that just because polling says 'do you want to keep this 'free' hand-out?' (yes, obviously) people are opposed, in principle, to having it end. What they object to is it being taken away *from them* whilst similar hand-outs continue to the (in their view) undeserving, aka 'benefit scroungers'.
That those having CB on a family income of over £26k are themselves 'benefit scroungers' does not cross their mind.
Easily the best post of the day. Benefits just breed dependency.. They should be short term only and linked to previous contributions unless someone has a real disability ( not the current 30% of the population who are supposed to be ).
8% rise in British Gas bills; other suppliers sure to follow suit. That's any marriage tax break taken care of for most couples. And those who aren't married have to find another £100 or so from somewhere.
And how did Ed Miliband help bills when he was energy secretary? Did he put systems in place to reduce prices, or to increase them?
(And that is leaving aside the fact he did f'all for energy security)
His time at DECC is one of the reasons I think Ed Miliband is unsuitable to be PM.
I completely agree but the sad truth is that Huhne and Davey have been no better than Ed was.
As I said the other day energy policy is the biggest single failure of the Coalition. A government properly focussed on our economic interests would have (a) stopped the green taxes driving up costs for the poor (b) stopped wasting so much time and effort on marginal suppliers like windfarms and focussed on our need for new power stations (c) driven through planning and development for new nuclear to replace the old and (d) moved 10X as fast on fracking.
We will pay a high price for the delusions of that department.
Agree with some of that, but:
point a): yep, but how does that fit in with opinion polling on green issues?
point c): I believe the problem with new nuclear plants is not the planning process per se, but more the funding. As with wind farms and other greenery, the suppliers want a guaranteed price for their power over a span of decades. This could (should?) be fixed by having the government build the nuclear power stations themselves, as we did in the 1950s and 1960s. We want the power stations, we take the risk. (I might be wrong in this...)
point d): I'm unsure how we could have moved 10x as fast on fracking. There's some very physical limitations.
One little mouthy Kipper is hardly media coverage moving against UKIP.
It's not the incident it's the reaction (although the reaction isn't over yet so could end up positive).
I think that's taking wishful thinking too far. Bloom's a loose cannon, and a link with a past that we're better off having moved away from. He doesn't even have the 'colourful character' defence.
The only positive for UKIP out of this is - hopefully - ridding themselves of Bloom. Which they should have done months ago.
You're looking at it from your point of view and not that of potential UKIP voters who are hacked off enough to look past all sorts of flaws as long as the people involved address their issues.
(Although it would be different if UKIP were already consistently at their core limit.)
"a link with a past that we're better off having moved away from"
It's good so many people are so concerned with improving the position of women in our brave new world - at least in the areas where the political and media class live anyway.
On topic, UKIP has had in Farage its biggest asset and its biggest constaint on progress. There have been several key points in UKIPs history where a smart Farage should have embraced competent professionals that would have helped take the party's organisation and structures forward. These include people such as Petrina, the Lechlade group and many many others. Unfortunately for UKIP, Farage and others blocked those movements and left UKIP ill-prepared to sustain any poll uplift. Farage made the worst decisions, he tolerated the unstable mavericks and drove out the stable professionals becuase he feared them supplanting himself. Farage prefers a very disorganised structure at the top. Which is what we can all see on our tv screens.
I've not thought about this in detail, but would there be an argument for regional income tax rates?
So long as there aren't that many it should be possible for the HMRC to manage ( may be you would need an arbitrary date that it is where you are living as of X date or something per year)
Of course there would be anomalies at the boundaries of regions, but that would work itself out pretty quickly in house prices / rental rates.
But that could be a way to take into account something of the cost of living?
Would be interesting for those that, say, live in Sheffield but work in London (and stay in a bedsit overnight). I wonder how we deal with that?
What it might do, is for those people, where possible, to do more work from home. It might be worth a cut in salary.
The Tories huge achilles heel is that voters believe they are a party of the rich for the rich.
In 2010, the Tories got 10.7 million votes.
that's 10.7 million people who either don't believe your bold assertion about their views or for whom it doesn't affect their voting decision
and how many people did not vote Conservative in 2010 , 19 million actively voted against and 16 million did not vote at all . Either they did believe that assertion or it did not affect their voting decision
Just asked Kevin Maguire on Twitter whether he has featured in the McBride excerpts yet. Must be only a matter of time since he was ppart of Brown's magic circle.
Only someone as uber privileged as Rachel Reeves could think £60k isn't seen as rich. She should ask the good people of Leeds, Bradford, Manchester, Liverpool or anywhere north of there. Suspect they will have a very different view. Up here in the Highlands, few senior managers or company directors earn £60k.
Was interested to read that Reeves husband was Gordon Brown's private secretary and speech-writer at one time. Another link into the spider's web!
Well that's just anti London prejudice yet again from you because here in London and around £60k is far from rich. Fair play to Reeves - she is right. Families with a main earner on £60k and young children are being taxed at 70% marginal rates, have huge mortgage costs and astronomical nursery fees. London is a different world - we drive the economy for the whole UK, work the longest hours in Europe and are told by you and your ilk we are "rich" for our troubles.
Londoners are tossers think they should get more than everybody else and deserve all they get, if you want to stay in the dump suck it up and stop stealing money from the rest of the country to support your supposed Nirvana.
Morning Alan, Hope you are well. I have spent some good nights in London on expenses but what a bunch of overprivileged whingers. They want to get north of the Watford gap and see what they have done to the rest of the country, sucked almost dry.
When I was paying near 100k Tax in the late 80s/90s I decided enough was enough and simply stopped working for a year.. I was sick of seeing very definite layabouts getting drunk in the pub every night..as I was returning from work Apparently the system still exists..but no longer supported by me.
One little mouthy Kipper is hardly media coverage moving against UKIP.
It's not the incident it's the reaction (although the reaction isn't over yet so could end up positive).
I think that's taking wishful thinking too far. Bloom's a loose cannon, and a link with a past that we're better off having moved away from. He doesn't even have the 'colourful character' defence.
The only positive for UKIP out of this is - hopefully - ridding themselves of Bloom. Which they should have done months ago.
You're looking at it from your point of view and not that of potential UKIP voters who are hacked off enough to look past all sorts of flaws as long as the people involved address their issues.
(Although it would be different if UKIP were already consistently at their core limit.)
"a link with a past that we're better off having moved away from"
It's good so many people are so concerned with improving the position of women in our brave new world - at least in the areas where the political and media class live anyway.
No, I'm looking at from the perspective of people who want an alternative, but don't want to be associated with those sorts of (repeated) comments. It shouldn't be acceptable in business; it shouldn't be acceptable in politics.
But then again, you're not the target grouping of his comments, are you?
Good morning and the Bloom videos from yesterday are priceless. My favourite was his attack on a BBC journalist, hitting him with the conference programme and accusing him of being racist.
To be fair to Bloom, he actually had something of a point.
Crick's instinct was to look at the cover and say 'there is no one black, that's wrong'.
Bloom should have responding something along the lines - 'well I judge people based on what they do, say and believe, not the colour of their skin'.
But he didn't - he lost his cool and looked like a complete idiot.
That is exactly what Bloom said to Crick. I agree he's funny, and for 78 quite amazing. He had me chuckling a few times. The media want the public to adopt their faux PC morality, but they are unlikely to succeed. Humour is not so easy to regulate.
No, that is precisely *not* what Bloom said.
He said "You're racist." Several times. His first sentence was criticising Crick for judging based on colour, but then instead of turning it into a positive for UKIP he went on a rant. And people will remember the rant.
That's the difference between a serious politician and a buffoon.
But Rachel Reeves' comments are important. They signal that Labour would not plan to raise taxes substantially which in turn means that it would plan to spend at similar levels to the current Government. Its spending commitments will need to be rationed carefully.
Unless it is planning to raise business taxes a fair bit.
Osborne is going to leave office spending 44% of GDP, there is absolutely no need for Labour to spend more than Osborne, in 12 out of their 13 years in office before the crisis hit they spent less than that.
The key will be to reduce welfare spending rather than increasing it as Thatcher, Major and Cameron did. and the key to that is moving from housing benefit to housebuilding, and a living wage rather than subsidising low pay.
Can you explain exactly how a living wage would work in practice?
I still don't understand how increasing the cost of labour will increase the number of jobs available.
Higher wages will mean customers have more money to spend. Savings in welfare payments will mean taxes can be cut. Staff turnover (and hence recruitment and training costs) will fall.
Note that the last two mean that increasing the nominal cost of labour does not necessarily increase the cost of labour.
And as free-market Conservatives, LibDem Orange Bookers and "third way" Labour(-ites?) can all applaud: ending state subsidies of low-paying employers will remove market distortions and allow the free market to flourish.
To illustrate how poor a judge of people Farage is just look at the past two people he chose to be his second in the South East MEP list. in 2005 he backed Ashley Mote. In 2009 he backed and brought into UKIP Marta Andreasen. Niether of those completed their MEP terms as UKIP MEPs. One went to jail and Marta joined the Conservatives. Good sound UKIP professionals were by passed in the selection lists through the activities of Farage behind the scenes. He personally chose these mavericks.
But Rachel Reeves' comments are important. They signal that Labour would not plan to raise taxes substantially which in turn means that it would plan to spend at similar levels to the current Government. Its spending commitments will need to be rationed carefully.
Unless it is planning to raise business taxes a fair bit.
Osborne is going to leave office spending 44% of GDP, there is absolutely no need for Labour to spend more than Osborne, in 12 out of their 13 years in office before the crisis hit they spent less than that.
The key will be to reduce welfare spending rather than increasing it as Thatcher, Major and Cameron did. and the key to that is moving from housing benefit to housebuilding, and a living wage rather than subsidising low pay.
Can you explain exactly how a living wage would work in practice?
I still don't understand how increasing the cost of labour will increase the number of jobs available.
Doh, the people spending the extra money will create more jobs. Well seen you toffs get your jobs through influence and not intelligence.
Good morning and the Bloom videos from yesterday are priceless. My favourite was his attack on a BBC journalist, hitting him with the conference programme and accusing him of being racist.
To be fair to Bloom, he actually had something of a point.
Crick's instinct was to look at the cover and say 'there is no one black, that's wrong'.
Bloom should have responding something along the lines - 'well I judge people based on what they do, say and believe, not the colour of their skin'.
But he didn't - he lost his cool and looked like a complete idiot.
"Mate of make white folks angry Woolas" is a poisonous dwarf . Bloom got it exactly right in calling him a racist .
I'm always wary of advice given freely by opponents.
Can you explain exactly how a living wage would work in practice?
I still don't understand how increasing the cost of labour will increase the number of jobs available.
Higher wages will mean customers have more money to spend. Savings in welfare payments will mean taxes can be cut. Staff turnover (and hence recruitment and training costs) will fall.
Note that the last two mean that increasing the nominal cost of labour does not necessarily increase the cost of labour.
And as free-market Conservatives, LibDem Orange Bookers and "third way" Labour(-ites?) can all applaud: ending state subsidies of low-paying employers will remove market distortions and allow the free market to flourish.
If, for example, we doubled everyone's after tax wages, people would have twice as much money to spend. What do you think would happen to the price of, say, food? Would it stay the same?
There would be twice as much money chasing the same amount of goods and services.
But Rachel Reeve' comments are important. They signal that Labour would not plan to raise taxes substantially which in turn means that it would plan to spend at similar levels to the current Government. Its spending commitments will need to be rationed carefully.
Unless it is planning to raise business taxes a fair bit.
Osborne is going to leave office spending 44% of GDP, there is absolutely no need for Labour to spend more than Osborne, in 12 out of their 13 years in office before the crisis hit they spent less than that.
The key will be to reduce welfare spending rather than increasing it as Thatcher, Major and Cameron did. and the key to that is moving from housing benefit to housebuilding, and a living wage rather than subsidising low pay.
Can you explain exactly how a living wage would work in practice?
I still don't understand how increasing the cost of labour will increase the number of jobs available.
Doh, the people spending the extra money will create more jobs. Well seen you toffs get your jobs through influence and not intelligence.
They should make the living wage £1M pa - we would all be rich.
But Rachel Reeves' comments are important. They signal that Labour would not plan to raise taxes substantially which in turn means that it would plan to spend at similar levels to the current Government. Its spending commitments will need to be rationed carefully.
Unless it is planning to raise business taxes a fair bit.
Osborne is going to leave office spending 44% of GDP, there is absolutely no need for Labour to spend more than Osborne, in 12 out of their 13 years in office before the crisis hit they spent less than that.
The key will be to reduce welfare spending rather than increasing it as Thatcher, Major and Cameron did. and the key to that is moving from housing benefit to housebuilding, and a living wage rather than subsidising low pay.
Can you explain exactly how a living wage would work in practice?
I still don't understand how increasing the cost of labour will increase the number of jobs available.
Trickle-sideways economics.
(Although you do need a minimum amount of profitable exports as well to sort your balance of trade.)
But Rachel Reeves' comments are important. They signal that Labour would not plan to raise taxes substantially which in turn means that it would plan to spend at similar levels to the current Government. Its spending commitments will need to be rationed carefully.
Unless it is planning to raise business taxes a fair bit.
Osborne is going to leave office spending 44% of GDP, there is absolutely no need for Labour to spend more than Osborne, in 12 out of their 13 years in office before the crisis hit they spent less than that.
The key will be to reduce welfare spending rather than increasing it as Thatcher, Major and Cameron did. and the key to that is moving from housing benefit to housebuilding, and a living wage rather than subsidising low pay.
Can you explain exactly how a living wage would work in practice?
I still don't understand how increasing the cost of labour will increase the number of jobs available.
I don't know if it caught your attention but we now have our first female bishop, time for Welby to play catch up ;-)
8% rise in British Gas bills; other suppliers sure to follow suit. That's any marriage tax break taken care of for most couples. And those who aren't married have to find another £100 or so from somewhere.
I completely agree but the sad truth is that Huhne and Davey have been no better than Ed was.
As I said the other day energy policy is the biggest single failure of the Coalition. A government properly focussed on our economic interests would have (a) stopped the green taxes driving up costs for the poor (b) stopped wasting so much time and effort on marginal suppliers like windfarms and focussed on our need for new power stations (c) driven through planning and development for new nuclear to replace the old and (d) moved 10X as fast on fracking.
We will pay a high price for the delusions of that department.
Agree with some of that, but:
point a): yep, but how does that fit in with opinion polling on green issues?
point c): I believe the problem with new nuclear plants is not the planning process per se, but more the funding. As with wind farms and other greenery, the suppliers want a guaranteed price for their power over a span of decades. This could (should?) be fixed by having the government build the nuclear power stations themselves, as we did in the 1950s and 1960s. We want the power stations, we take the risk. (I might be wrong in this...)
point d): I'm unsure how we could have moved 10x as fast on fracking. There's some very physical limitations.
(a) Well Osborne finding the money to dismantle the fuel escalator has proved pretty popular. I think many would be shocked how much their bills are being driven by these policies.
(c) IANAE but my understanding is the dithering is the biggest problem. If we have to accept some of the economic risk of such long term facilities so be it.
(d) As many have pointed out there is little new in fracking. It has been developed enormously over a decade or more in the US. Why are we still having pilot studies and environmental assessments? We should be in production by now. If we were the risk of the BG gas price rise would at least be less.
Just asked Kevin Maguire on Twitter whether he has featured in the McBride excerpts yet. Must be only a matter of time since he was ppart of Brown's magic circle.
Only someone as uber privileged as Rachel Reeves could think £60k isn't seen as rich. She should ask the good people of Leeds, Bradford, Manchester, Liverpool or anywhere north of there. Suspect they will have a very different view. Up here in the Highlands, few senior managers or company directors earn £60k.
Was interested to read that Reeves husband was Gordon Brown's private secretary and speech-writer at one time. Another link into the spider's web!
Well that's just anti Londoe are "rich" for our troubles.
Londoners are tossers think they should get more than everybody else and deserve all they get, if you want to stay in the dump suck it up and stop stealing money from the rest of the country to support your supposed Nirvana.
Morning Alan, Hope you are well. I have spent some good nights in London on expenses but what a bunch of overprivileged whingers. They want to get north of the Watford gap and see what they have done to the rest of the country, sucked almost dry.
I don't mind visiting London occasionally but it strikes me as a ghastly shithole to live in. Personally I've never been tempted to live there though I've had job offers to do so. So if Londoners want to live in their opulent midden fair dos but we need an economic structure which lets the rest of us do what's best for our regions.
I've not thought about this in detail, but would there be an argument for regional income tax rates?
So long as there aren't that many it should be possible for the HMRC to manage ( may be you would need an arbitrary date that it is where you are living as of X date or something per year)
Of course there would be anomalies at the boundaries of regions, but that would work itself out pretty quickly in house prices / rental rates.
But that could be a way to take into account something of the cost of living?
Would be interesting for those that, say, live in Sheffield but work in London (and stay in a bedsit overnight). I wonder how we deal with that?
What it might do, is for those people, where possible, to do more work from home. It might be worth a cut in salary.
It may well be far too complicated, but it does seem that there is a real issue for policy makers in that £50K in London doesn't buy much in terms of lifestyle, while it would make you extremely well-off in most of the country.
The Tories huge achilles heel is that voters believe they are a party of the rich for the rich.
In 2010, the Tories got 10.7 million votes.
that's 10.7 million people who either don't believe your bold assertion about their views or for whom it doesn't affect their voting decision
and how many people did not vote Conservative in 2010 , 19 million actively voted against and 16 million did not vote at all . Either they did believe that assertion or it did not affect their voting decision
My point was that Roger was speaking about "The Voters" as a block, which is clearly bollocks.
Mr. Jonathan, on food banks it's important to note these are new and that their use has rapidly increased since their relatively recent introduction. This cannot be blamed on any single party because they haven't yet reached full capacity (ie more people, every year, have needed/wanted to use them than there has been capacity to cater to). Only when we reach the ceiling will we be able to assess how economic circumstances are affecting those at the lower end.
Morris , however in a country as wealthy as the UK it is a sad indictment on UK that we have so much poverty and need food banks whilst the rich are just grabbing more and more. UK is sick at the core.
What would your solution be? What would you change to make things more equitable?
I would increase minimum wages , reduce benefits and make anyone on benefits work 40 hours a week. Taxation would be simplified and closing the tax dodges that companies and politicians rich buddies use to avoid paying would be closed. So everybody pays what they should and those that can't get help for a minimum period, with the carrot of a living wage.
On topic, UKIP has had in Farage its biggest asset and its biggest constaint on progress. There have been several key points in UKIPs history where a smart Farage should have embraced competent professionals that would have helped take the party's organisation and structures forward. These include people such as Petrina, the Lechlade group and many many others. Unfortunately for UKIP, Farage and others blocked those movements and left UKIP ill-prepared to sustain any poll uplift. Farage made the worst decisions, he tolerated the unstable mavericks and drove out the stable professionals becuase he feared them supplanting himself. Farage prefers a very disorganised structure at the top. Which is what we can all see on our tv screens.
Pretty much exactly my view. When you have so many competent, dedicated and professional Eurosceptics like Richard North who won't touch UKIP with a barge pole, you really do have to question the sense of continuing to let Farage run the party in the way he does.
But Rachel Reeves' comments are important. They signal that Labour would not plan to raise taxes substantially which in turn means that it would plan to spend at similar levels to the current Government. Its spending commitments will need to be rationed carefully.
Unless it is planning to raise business taxes a fair bit.
Osborne is going to leave office spending 44% of GDP, there is absolutely no need for Labour to spend more than Osborne, in 12 out of their 13 years in office before the crisis hit they spent less than that.
The key will be to reduce welfare spending rather than increasing it as Thatcher, Major and Cameron did. and the key to that is moving from housing benefit to housebuilding, and a living wage rather than subsidising low pay.
Can you explain exactly how a living wage would work in practice?
I still don't understand how increasing the cost of labour will increase the number of jobs available.
Higher wages will mean customers have more money to spend. Savings in welfare payments will mean taxes can be cut. Staff turnover (and hence recruitment and training costs) will fall.
Note that the last two mean that increasing the nominal cost of labour does not necessarily increase the cost of labour.
And as free-market Conservatives, LibDem Orange Bookers and "third way" Labour(-ites?) can all applaud: ending state subsidies of low-paying employers will remove market distortions and allow the free market to flourish.
That logic works in a closed economy. (Although you are loading costs upfront and it will take time for the benefits to flow through). In an open economy it will be much more challenging. In the days of a global economy, labour has a global price.
The Tories huge achilles heel is that voters believe they are a party of the rich for the rich.
In 2010, the Tories got 10.7 million votes.
that's 10.7 million people who either don't believe your bold assertion about their views or for whom it doesn't affect their voting decision
and how many people did not vote Conservative in 2010 , 19 million actively voted against and 16 million did not vote at all . Either they did believe that assertion or it did not affect their voting decision
My point was that Roger was speaking about "The Voters" as a block, which is clearly bollocks.
Roger may or may not have been speaking bollocks but so were you
"More than a third of houses bought in the UK are paid for entirely in cash,
The proportion of homes purchased with no related borrowing at all has reached 35 per cent, compared to between 10 per cent and 15 per cent before the financial crisis in 2008.
the trend is being driven by wealthy foreign investors buying up properties in London, as well as the growing number of people investing in buy-to-let properties."
There are plenty of people who live in nice houses paid for by the state who have a better standard of living than people earning £60k who are struggling to pay large mortgages on second rate flats. It's a bit harsh to label the latter as rich.
One little mouthy Kipper is hardly media coverage moving against UKIP.
It's not the incident it's the reaction (although the reaction isn't over yet so could end up positive).
I think that's taking wishful thinking too far. Bloom's a loose cannon, and a link with a past that we're better off having moved away from. He doesn't even have the 'colourful character' defence.
The only positive for UKIP out of this is - hopefully - ridding themselves of Bloom. Which they should have done months ago.
You're looking at it from your point of view and not that of potential UKIP voters who are hacked off enough to look past all sorts of flaws as long as the people involved address their issues.
(Although it would be different if UKIP were already consistently at their core limit.)
"a link with a past that we're better off having moved away from"
It's good so many people are so concerned with improving the position of women in our brave new world - at least in the areas where the political and media class live anyway.
No, I'm looking at from the perspective of people who want an alternative, but don't want to be associated with those sorts of (repeated) comments. It shouldn't be acceptable in business; it shouldn't be acceptable in politics.
But then again, you're not the target grouping of his comments, are you?
1) Your original point about wishful thinking was wrong because you weren't looking at it from the point of view of a potential UKIP voter.
"But then again, you're not the target grouping of his comments, are you?"
2) Ooo bit of moral superiority there. For a good non-sexist like yourself what's more important - Bloom using the word "sluts" or the political and media class covering this up?
"It worked for the Conservatives" .. Yes Politics and religion are close partners.. both promise eternal easy living if you vote for us..and as you know, they are both lying..
Mr. Jonathan, on food banks it's important to note these are new and that their use has rapidly increased since their relatively recent introduction. This cannot be blamed on any single party because they haven't yet reached full capacity (ie more people, every year, have needed/wanted to use them than there has been capacity to cater to). Only when we reach the ceiling will we be able to assess how economic circumstances are affecting those at the lower end.
Morris , however in a country as wealthy as the UK it is a sad indictment on UK that we have so much poverty and need food banks whilst the rich are just grabbing more and more. UK is sick at the core.
No food banks in Scotland then, SNP government and all that ?
Alan, you know well they are mushrooming due to those useless toffs in Westminster raiding the meagre budget for Scotland. They keep ever more of our money to subsidise those whinging Londoners and keep them high on the hog. Despite the valiant efforts of the SNP we are still getting poorer as all the real powers are in London.
To read some of the posts here you would never realise that the Labour benches contain some of the richest people in Parliament. In Lord Sainsbury they probably have the wealthiest member of the Lords, in Margaret Hodge the richest female MP and in Sean Woodward a serious contender for the title of wealthiest male MP.
Mr. Jonathan, on food banks it's important to note these are new and that their use has rapidly increased since their relatively recent introduction. This cannot be blamed on any single party because they haven't yet reached full capacity (ie more people, every year, have needed/wanted to use them than there has been capacity to cater to). Only when we reach the ceiling will we be able to assess how economic circumstances are affecting those at the lower end.
Morris , however in a country as wealthy as the UK it is a sad indictment on UK that we have so much poverty and need food banks whilst the rich are just grabbing more and more. UK is sick at the core.
What would your solution be? What would you change to make things more equitable?
I would increase minimum wages , reduce benefits and make anyone on benefits work 40 hours a week. Taxation would be simplified and closing the tax dodges that companies and politicians rich buddies use to avoid paying would be closed. So everybody pays what they should and those that can't get help for a minimum period, with the carrot of a living wage.
Where are the jobs that you would make anyone on benefits work 40 hours a week and what jobs would you make a severely disabled person on benefits do ?
Mr. Jonathan, on food banks it's important to note these are new and that their use has rapidly increased since their relatively recent introduction. This cannot be blamed on any single party because they haven't yet reached full capacity (ie more people, every year, have needed/wanted to use them than there has been capacity to cater to). Only when we reach the ceiling will we be able to assess how economic circumstances are affecting those at the lower end.
Morris , however in a country as wealthy as the UK it is a sad indictment on UK that we have so much poverty and need food banks whilst the rich are just grabbing more and more. UK is sick at the core.
No food banks in Scotland then, SNP government and all that ?
Alan, you know well they are mushrooming due to those useless toffs in Westminster raiding the meagre budget for Scotland. They keep ever more of our money to subsidise those whinging Londoners and keep them high on the hog. Despite the valiant efforts of the SNP we are still getting poorer as all the real powers are in London.
There are plenty of people who live in nice houses paid for by the state who have a better standard of living than people earning £60k who are struggling to pay large mortgages on second rate flats. It's a bit harsh to label the latter as rich.
Probably not, but then if they are a couple and both earning they probably have a high level of disposable income. Which is why it is probably a pointless argument.
What I do know, is that as a single basic rate taxpayer who has no children, and doesn't plan to have any, is that I don't know why I am paying tax so that Bobajob can get Child Benefit. But I also think he pays too much tax and think that the higher rate(s) should be abolished.
Pay less tax, get less benefits, fund your lifestyle yourself, makes sense to me.
Although I can't help thinking that if all these Londoners on £60k are so poor, they would move out of London and, if necessary, accept a lower salary. But they don't seem to do so.
Just asked Kevin Maguire on Twitter whether he has featured in the McBride excerpts yet. Must be only a matter of time since he was ppart of Brown's magic circle.
Only someone as uber privileged as Rachel Reeves could think £60k isn't seen as rich. She should ask the good people of Leeds, Bradford, Manchester, Liverpool or anywhere north of there. Suspect they will have a very different view. Up here in the Highlands, few senior managers or company directors earn £60k.
Was interested to read that Reeves husband was Gordon Brown's private secretary and speech-writer at one time. Another link into the spider's web!
Well that's just anti Londoe are "rich" for our troubles.
Londoners are tossers think they should get more than everybody else and deserve all they get, if you want to stay in the dump suck it up and stop stealing money from the rest of the country to support your supposed Nirvana.
Morning Alan, Hope you are well. I have spent some good nights in London on expenses but what a bunch of overprivileged whingers. They want to get north of the Watford gap and see what they have done to the rest of the country, sucked almost dry.
I don't mind visiting London occasionally but it strikes me as a ghastly shithole to live in. Personally I've never been tempted to live there though I've had job offers to do so. So if Londoners want to live in their opulent midden fair dos but we need an economic structure which lets the rest of us do what's best for our regions.
My thoughts exactly Alan , but self interest will never allow it to happen.
On topic, UKIP has had in Farage its biggest asset and its biggest constaint on progress. There have been several key points in UKIPs history where a smart Farage should have embraced competent professionals that would have helped take the party's organisation and structures forward. These include people such as Petrina, the Lechlade group and many many others. Unfortunately for UKIP, Farage and others blocked those movements and left UKIP ill-prepared to sustain any poll uplift. Farage made the worst decisions, he tolerated the unstable mavericks and drove out the stable professionals becuase he feared them supplanting himself. Farage prefers a very disorganised structure at the top. Which is what we can all see on our tv screens.
Pretty much exactly my view. When you have so many competent, dedicated and professional Eurosceptics like Richard North who won't touch UKIP with a barge pole, you really do have to question the sense of continuing to let Farage run the party in the way he does.
Mr. Jonathan, on food banks it's important to note these are new and that their use has rapidly increased since their relatively recent introduction. This cannot be blamed on any single party because they haven't yet reached full capacity (ie more people, every year, have needed/wanted to use them than there has been capacity to cater to). Only when we reach the ceiling will we be able to assess how economic circumstances are affecting those at the lower end.
Morris , however in a country as wealthy as the UK it is a sad indictment on UK that we have so much poverty and need food banks whilst the rich are just grabbing more and more. UK is sick at the core.
No food banks in Scotland then, SNP government and all that ?
Alan, you know well they are mushrooming due to those useless toffs in Westminster raiding the meagre budget for Scotland. They keep ever more of our money to subsidise those whinging Londoners and keep them high on the hog. Despite the valiant efforts of the SNP we are still getting poorer as all the real powers are in London.
Greater London pays out far more in tax than it receives in public spending
and how many people did not vote Conservative in 2010 , 19 million actively voted against
Did they? I'm always interested in people who think they know the voters' motivation, on no evidence as far as I can see. Maybe a lot of people who voted LibDem, on this occasion, just preferred them a little bit to the Tories. So not really a vote "against" at all.
FPT There was a point made about plumbers on 60k. I suppose it's possible but generally when someone like that is earning a shed load they're not *just* working at their trade they're also running a company where they're employing other people as well so they're part plumber part company director.
The Tories huge achilles heel is that voters believe they are a party of the rich for the rich.
In 2010, the Tories got 10.7 million votes.
that's 10.7 million people who either don't believe your bold assertion about their views or for whom it doesn't affect their voting decision
and how many people did not vote Conservative in 2010 , 19 million actively voted against and 16 million did not vote at all . Either they did believe that assertion or it did not affect their voting decision
My point was that Roger was speaking about "The Voters" as a block, which is clearly bollocks.
Roger may or may not have been speaking bollocks but so were you
I think it's fair to say that the biggest barrier to voting Conservative is that many voters see them as the party of the rich - even some people with quite right wing views. It's a much bigger problem for the party than people not voting for them because they're too socially conservative, something that the Conservative leadership quite misunderstand.
and how many people did not vote Conservative in 2010 , 19 million actively voted against
Did they? I'm always interested in people who think they know the voters' motivation, on no evidence as far as I can see. Maybe a lot of people who voted LibDem, on this occasion, just preferred them a little bit to the Tories. So not really a vote "against" at all.
If they did vote against, then they were not voting for Labour (or LibDem). I wonder why?
Mr. Jonathan, on food banks it's important to note these are new and that their use has rapidly increased since their relatively recent introduction. This cannot be blamed on any single party because they haven't yet reached full capacity (ie more people, every year, have needed/wanted to use them than there has been capacity to cater to). Only when we reach the ceiling will we be able to assess how economic circumstances are affecting those at the lower end.
Morris , however in a country as wealthy as the UK it is a sad indictment on UK that we have so much poverty and need food banks whilst the rich are just grabbing more and more. UK is sick at the core.
What would your solution be? What would you change to make things more equitable?
I would increase minimum wages , reduce benefits and make anyone on benefits work 40 hours a week. Taxation would be simplified and closing the tax dodges that companies and politicians rich buddies use to avoid paying would be closed. So everybody pays what they should and those that can't get help for a minimum period, with the carrot of a living wage.
Where are the jobs that you would make anyone on benefits work 40 hours a week and what jobs would you make a severely disabled person on benefits do ?
You obviously exclude disabled people ( I mean real ones not the millions who have nothing wrong other than lazyitis ). For the others, the country is a shithole , they could go out and do all the work the council cannot afford, clear footpaths , renovate public buildings, pick up litter etc. Even just make them attend something for 40 hours so that it is not a benefit and breeds dependency. Make them earn it and be keen to take all those jobs that are snapped up by foreigners. No contributions should mean no handouts, benefits needs to stop being a lifestyle.
Mr. Jonathan, on food banks it's important to note these are new and that their use has rapidly increased since their relatively recent introduction. This cannot be blamed on any single party because they haven't yet reached full capacity (ie more people, every year, have needed/wanted to use them than there has been capacity to cater to). Only when we reach the ceiling will we be able to assess how economic circumstances are affecting those at the lower end.
Morris , however in a country as wealthy as the UK it is a sad indictment on UK that we have so much poverty and need food banks whilst the rich are just grabbing more and more. UK is sick at the core.
No food banks in Scotland then, SNP government and all that ?
Alan, you know well they are mushrooming due to those useless toffs in Westminster raiding the meagre budget for Scotland. They keep ever more of our money to subsidise those whinging Londoners and keep them high on the hog. Despite the valiant efforts of the SNP we are still getting poorer as all the real powers are in London.
malc I have my hanky wiping my eyes with post ;-)
Lol, all right for you Alan , I am sowing a new erse on my troosers as I post. Wife is making the gruel.
Mr. Jonathan, on food banks it's important to note these are new and that their use has rapidly increased since their relatively recent introduction. This cannot be blamed on any single party because they haven't yet reached full capacity (ie more people, every year, have needed/wanted to use them than there has been capacity to cater to). Only when we reach the ceiling will we be able to assess how economic circumstances are affecting those at the lower end.
Morris , however in a country as wealthy as the UK it is a sad indictment on UK that we have so much poverty and need food banks whilst the rich are just grabbing more and more. UK is sick at the core.
No food banks in Scotland then, SNP government and all that ?
Alan, you know well they are mushrooming due to those useless toffs in Westminster raiding the meagre budget for Scotland. They keep ever more of our money to subsidise those whinging Londoners and keep them high on the hog. Despite the valiant efforts of the SNP we are still getting poorer as all the real powers are in London.
Greater London pays out far more in tax than it receives in public spending
On topic, UKIP has had in Farage its biggest asset and its biggest constaint on progress. There have been several key points in UKIPs history where a smart Farage should have embraced competent professionals that would have helped take the party's organisation and structures forward. These include people such as Petrina, the Lechlade group and many many others. Unfortunately for UKIP, Farage and others blocked those movements and left UKIP ill-prepared to sustain any poll uplift. Farage made the worst decisions, he tolerated the unstable mavericks and drove out the stable professionals becuase he feared them supplanting himself. Farage prefers a very disorganised structure at the top. Which is what we can all see on our tv screens.
Pretty much exactly my view. When you have so many competent, dedicated and professional Eurosceptics like Richard North who won't touch UKIP with a barge pole, you really do have to question the sense of continuing to let Farage run the party in the way he does.
My 2p worth -The media were gunning for UKIP to be sure; however, Crick’s provocation should have been easily deflected by Bloom and his ‘joke’ which although appears to have offended no one at conference, really shouldn’t have happened. Politics 101 - As for Farage, words fail me, he could not have handled it any worse.
The irony of all this is that it may not affect them one jot in the polls, we will have to wait and see. However, the perception of UKIP as a serious party, that could work with others (eg Richard North) to organise a serious campaign, certainly took one hell of a hammering.
Comments
Economically, of course, it was plain idiotic. Having the state take ever larger chunks of our income so that they could, with characteristic inefficiency and cost, give it back again is just nuts.
Tories believe in a smaller state. That means less tax and the help given by the state being focussed on the poor and the genuinely needy. This means demolishing Brown's empires and traps.
I would expect in the next government, frankly whoever wins, that WTC entitlement will be cut back to nearer the average wage, pensioner freebies will stop being universal and as a country we will start to focus more on what we really need to spend. We may do it a bit faster under the tories but the direction of travel seems inevitable. We still have £100bn a year to find.
Taxing wealth screws saving and punishes success - every year forever.
It is the approach of envy and schadenfreude - not of logic.
I think the respense to the "sluts"comment by both the media and Farage is a ludicrous overreaction. In context, it's just a comment on what a couple of women had said to him and clearly in jest which was how it was received. Seems the media is desperate to savage UKIP and were waiting to pounce on anything they could whether it was actually offensive or not.
I'm surprised by Farage's response, UKIP's appeal to many is their non PC approach. I would have expected him to say it's all a media witchunt and this country is a sadder place if you can't make a joke like that without being castigated. They are not going to win votes from the sort of people who are offended by that comment by reacting as they have but they may lose votes for pandering to the media's PC narrative. It is worrying to see politicians sacked by parties for utter trivia because there is some media firestorm or other, (I forget the name of the tory in the 2010 election campaign), I wish they would grow a pair and face the media down but none have the gumption. I would have expected Farage to be braver as it plays to UKIP's anti mainstream politics appeal.
On the other hand the white faces brochure reflects a fault with UKIP and Bloom's reaction to being challanged about it was ridiculous and made him look a complete joke. I doubt that will lose UKIP votes though, unlike the earlier issue.
As for the theory well its bollox, UKIP will have no influence on Labour unless it takes huge chunks of labour votes from them. It remains to be seen if UKIP can do what it claims in Northern England and Scotland. But as for uniting behind a BOO campaign yestrday simply confirms to me what I have long suspected that UKIP is in no fit state to run a BOO campaign. IMO the campaign if it is to succeed will rely heavily on Tory eurosceptic MPs who of course are exactly the people whose numbers you will minimise.
This is not an electoral strategy I buy in to, it's very Continental shall we say. You want to smash the system and to build a new one; every time that happens the people doing the smashing lose control of events. The UKs history and strength is one of organic change and ultimately that's still going to be our best way of getting a sensible relationship with Europe.
Which is why benefits should be entirely localised. People would then migrate to those areas with highest benefits - and drive them down.
We simply need to get away from recycling borrowed and taxed income as benefits - it's economically and socially insane.
Weaning people off might take a decade - but cold turkey treatment would be far more effective, efficient - AND popular (since it would be linked to, for example, raising the PA threshold to min wage levels)
There's a profound misconception that just because polling says 'do you want to keep this 'free' hand-out?' (yes, obviously) people are opposed, in principle, to having it end. What they object to is it being taken away *from them* whilst similar hand-outs continue to the (in their view) undeserving, aka 'benefit scroungers'.
That those having CB on a family income of over £26k are themselves 'benefit scroungers' does not cross their mind.
The best I could think of would be a 1% tax on family property portfolios worth over £5m. That kind of tax would only target the actually wealthy, but usually the properties they own are leased and they would pay tax on that income. It's not as easy as saying "tax wealth". There are too many unintended consequences from it that need to be mitigated.
Tim said
What Tories "believe" and what they do must be two different things then because every Tory govt since 1979 has increased benefit spending.
In the case of this govt they have deliberately chosen to maintain large state benefit spending to protect their pensioner vote.
You see Tim, every Labour government in history has left the incoming tory government with higher unemployment to deal with. What is a caring and compassionate party to do? They seek to protect the poor but cut back on the stupidities and blatant bribes that the last government left. They reduce the headcount of the state to something like more manageable levels (we will have a reduction of about 1m in this Parliament but Brown was an extreme case) and try to focus spending where it is really needed.
And Labour oppose every cut. They are not with the public on this one. Not at all.
All governments that end, always leave problems. Otherwise they would be re-elected.
In a democracy, it's nothing to be ashamed of either. it's a vital part of the system.
The problem with Bloom is that he thinks all publicity is good publicity. For that reason, I didn't vote for him in the selection process.
I heard the UKIP spokesman talking about fracking yesterday morning before the nonsense started. Putting aside the question of whether we can afford to have a wealth fund when we still have such a horrendous deficit I thought he talked a great deal of sense.
My sense, or more likely my prejudice, is that green taxes on energy are going to become a seriously hot issue in the next few years. We are seeing this already in Germany and we are not far behind.
Combining it with the theme of this thread green taxes are a morally obnoxious tax on the poor.
Crick's instinct was to look at the cover and say 'there is no one black, that's wrong'.
Bloom should have responding something along the lines - 'well I judge people based on what they do, say and believe, not the colour of their skin'.
But he didn't - he lost his cool and looked like a complete idiot.
http://www.visitlondon.com/
"Michael Crick is in reception"
And then we found out what moral bankruptcy really looks like.
Having declared that they are rich is a reasonable case why they should pay more tax (which they already do, substantially, both in % terms and in absolute amounts)*
It's not an argument for why taxes on the rich should increase further from this point. (It's just a non-sequiteur)
* focusing on direct taxation for simplicity
Ukippers are unhappy that the focus on Godfrey Bloom's sexist and racist gaffes is distracting from the fact they don't like gays either
So long as there aren't that many it should be possible for the HMRC to manage ( may be you would need an arbitrary date that it is where you are living as of X date or something per year)
Of course there would be anomalies at the boundaries of regions, but that would work itself out pretty quickly in house prices / rental rates.
But that could be a way to take into account something of the cost of living?
(And that is leaving aside the fact he did f'all for energy security)
His time at DECC is one of the reasons I think Ed Miliband is unsuitable to be PM.
I still don't understand how increasing the cost of labour will increase the number of jobs available.
It's a matter of public record that my salary is £28,199. Setting aside the arguments about marginal tax rates and benefits, I wouldn't be moaning about that 60 grand.
Oh, and Yorkcity, if you're around, from previous thread,
1) Don't fall for the myth about "firepersons" and their shift plans and second jobs. In my brigade alone, there are at least 5 different shift plans on operational stations, and you don't get to choose, you work the plan that the station runs.
2) Genuinely, in my experience, only about a quarter of "fire persons" have a regular second job, and if they do, so what? It ain't illegal to work in this country, last time I checked. Anyway it'll help us get to that magic 60k.
As I said the other day energy policy is the biggest single failure of the Coalition. A government properly focussed on our economic interests would have (a) stopped the green taxes driving up costs for the poor (b) stopped wasting so much time and effort on marginal suppliers like windfarms and focussed on our need for new power stations (c) driven through planning and development for new nuclear to replace the old and (d) moved 10X as fast on fracking.
We will pay a high price for the delusions of that department.
that's 10.7 million people who either don't believe your bold assertion about their views or for whom it doesn't affect their voting decision
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/my-gender-is-no-big-deal-says-first-female-coi-bishop-29595046.html
what about the spanish abdication?
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/boys-quizzed-over-500-rapes-a-year-by-gangs-8335165.html
point a): yep, but how does that fit in with opinion polling on green issues?
point c): I believe the problem with new nuclear plants is not the planning process per se, but more the funding. As with wind farms and other greenery, the suppliers want a guaranteed price for their power over a span of decades. This could (should?) be fixed by having the government build the nuclear power stations themselves, as we did in the 1950s and 1960s. We want the power stations, we take the risk. (I might be wrong in this...)
point d): I'm unsure how we could have moved 10x as fast on fracking. There's some very physical limitations.
(Although it would be different if UKIP were already consistently at their core limit.)
"a link with a past that we're better off having moved away from"
It's good so many people are so concerned with improving the position of women in our brave new world - at least in the areas where the political and media class live anyway.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/boys-quizzed-over-500-rapes-a-year-by-gangs-8335165.html
On topic, UKIP has had in Farage its biggest asset and its biggest constaint on progress. There have been several key points in UKIPs history where a smart Farage should have embraced competent professionals that would have helped take the party's organisation and structures forward. These include people such as Petrina, the Lechlade group and many many others. Unfortunately for UKIP, Farage and others blocked those movements and left UKIP ill-prepared to sustain any poll uplift. Farage made the worst decisions, he tolerated the unstable mavericks and drove out the stable professionals becuase he feared them supplanting himself. Farage prefers a very disorganised structure at the top. Which is what we can all see on our tv screens.
What it might do, is for those people, where possible, to do more work from home. It might be worth a cut in salary.
Who pays a greater proportion of their income in tax:
- someone who earns £50K, and buys a £250K house
- someone who earns £200K and buys a £1m house
Apparently the system still exists..but no longer supported by me.
But then again, you're not the target grouping of his comments, are you?
He said "You're racist." Several times. His first sentence was criticising Crick for judging based on colour, but then instead of turning it into a positive for UKIP he went on a rant. And people will remember the rant.
That's the difference between a serious politician and a buffoon.
Note that the last two mean that increasing the nominal cost of labour does not necessarily increase the cost of labour.
And as free-market Conservatives, LibDem Orange Bookers and "third way" Labour(-ites?) can all applaud: ending state subsidies of low-paying employers will remove market distortions and allow the free market to flourish.
I doubt you are a natural supporter of UKIP
There would be twice as much money chasing the same amount of goods and services.
I think this would lead to inflation.
(Although you do need a minimum amount of profitable exports as well to sort your balance of trade.)
It was only the backwoodsmen who prevented it going through (and even then only because they got slightly more than 33% of the vote)
(c) IANAE but my understanding is the dithering is the biggest problem. If we have to accept some of the economic risk of such long term facilities so be it.
(d) As many have pointed out there is little new in fracking. It has been developed enormously over a decade or more in the US. Why are we still having pilot studies and environmental assessments? We should be in production by now. If we were the risk of the BG gas price rise would at least be less.
OK, so I'm on about £100K right now, my wife earns £8 per hour as a carer (two days a week).
What would be the living wage for my wife?
It worked for the Conservatives in 1979.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/430672/EXCLUSIVE-Fury-over-move-to-let-migrants-use-foreign-languages-in-town-hall-debates
The proportion of homes purchased with no related borrowing at all has reached 35 per cent, compared to between 10 per cent and 15 per cent before the financial crisis in 2008.
the trend is being driven by wealthy foreign investors buying up properties in London, as well as the growing number of people investing in buy-to-let properties."
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2427772/Doubts-cast-housing-bubble-figures-homes-bought-cash-UK-year.html
"But then again, you're not the target grouping of his comments, are you?"
2) Ooo bit of moral superiority there. For a good non-sexist like yourself what's more important - Bloom using the word "sluts" or the political and media class covering this up?
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/boys-quizzed-over-500-rapes-a-year-by-gangs-8335165.html
What I do know, is that as a single basic rate taxpayer who has no children, and doesn't plan to have any, is that I don't know why I am paying tax so that Bobajob can get Child Benefit. But I also think he pays too much tax and think that the higher rate(s) should be abolished.
Pay less tax, get less benefits, fund your lifestyle yourself, makes sense to me.
Although I can't help thinking that if all these Londoners on £60k are so poor, they would move out of London and, if necessary, accept a lower salary. But they don't seem to do so.
Actually, I prefer to be known as a tatterdemalion.
There was a point made about plumbers on 60k. I suppose it's possible but generally when someone like that is earning a shed load they're not *just* working at their trade they're also running a company where they're employing other people as well so they're part plumber part company director.
Is this really what our civil servants should be allowed to do?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2427639/We-tried-knife-knifed--Cherie-aggressive-promoter-Tony-I-Gordon.html
The irony of all this is that it may not affect them one jot in the polls, we will have to wait and see. However, the perception of UKIP as a serious party, that could work with others (eg Richard North) to organise a serious campaign, certainly took one hell of a hammering.
That and Bloomers gave me the best laugh I've had all week.