Incidentally, it's never wise to treat newspaper web
sites comments as typical, but the marriage tax allowance proposal is getting a massive hammering from Mail readers, mostly from single people but also from people wondering where the money is coming from. I note Richard N's claim that Labour has given up on the deficit theme, but this proposal makes the Conservatives the only party to pledge a major deficit-increasing tax measure.
A couple of things.
1. I said I was expecting to get a giveaway tax cut from the Tories and I was right. I have no idea why they restricted it to married couples but I'm glad they have done it as my tax bills have never been higher thanks to Ozzy's insane shambling over CB. 2. I was right and the always-very-sure-of-himself Antifrank was wrong. I said that Ed's energy masterstroke would see the parties start trading blows over the cost of living, rather than deficit/austerity. With this move, the Tories can't bang on about the deficit with a straight-face, as it will directly result in a decrease in government revenue.
Since I've been predicting all week that George Osborne would be counterstriking on the cost of living crisis, I don't see where you get that from.
Austerity has not gone as a theme. You'll hear that word a lot more yet.
You told me I was "dead wrong" when I said the terms of battle had shifted.
Well, with this tax break they already have. We'll see how much "austerity" we hear about in the run-in to the election. We'll see...
You are dead wrong. The Conservatives are going to beating up Ed Miliband from now to the election on his inability to face up to the need for cuts. It will be as much about character as money, and it will be ugly.
By the way, it's good to see you keep up your lonely campaign for subsidised piano lessons for the children of the well-paid.
More than 800 healthcare managers drank and partied the night away at taxpayers’ expense at London’s five-star Grosvenor House hotel.
They blew a whopping £3,000 a table to enjoy the annual Health Service Journal Efficiency Awards. Their jolly could have paid a year’s salary for 33 nurses, while Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt is under pressure to improve the performance of NHS managers.
The partygoers left at 2am after a three-course dinner and drinks reception to mark their achievements cutting costs. They then stayed at top hotels, including the Mayfair Hilton and Radisson Blu Portman, for “discounted” prices of up to £300 each. NHS trusts are believed to have footed the bill from their own budgets, with at least one admitting they had dipped into a charity fund.
North Bristol NHS Trust was slammed five years ago for spending just 50p a head on hospital meals. A spokeswoman said they did not pay for their staff members to drink alcohol or stay overnight.
She added: “North Bristol NHS Trust’s attendance at the event was under the lowest priced package at £2,490 without alcohol and was paid for by charitable funds.”
From the Cameron Mail piece. I've had some interesting exchanges on Twitter with those that remind me a lot of the gay marriage fuss. The same people complain this is unfair to them as they're single, then complain that £200 is nothing anyway and what about wife beaters who leave their wives, and that getting married costs £10k and they can't afford it and and and - oh and its moralising.
I wish they'd be honest with themselves about what they were objecting too - it sounds like marriage on principle. That's fine. Just stick to that rather than dress it up with a load of unrelated hogwash. For the price of a marriage certificate - you could be better off within the same tax year if you felt you wanted to make such a binding commitment.
"...Labour won’t miss a trick: they will spend the next week peddling false and inaccurate myths rather than having a sensible debate. So let’s address a few of the myths that are likely are to spring up. This is not about stigmatising unmarried people or single parents: as I’ve already said, you don’t have to be married to have a family life that is rock solid – and we support all families through the tax and benefits system.
All we’re saying is that marriage is a good thing for our country – it’s the ultimate form of commitment under the law – and we want to show our support for it. Next, the charge will come up that we’re trying to bribe people to get married. Frankly this is a pretty depressing – and wrong-headed – view of human nature. People aren’t going to choose to get married for a few extra pounds each week. This policy isn’t about the money but about the message that people who make a lasting commitment should be recognised in some way.
Finally, Labour will say we’re favouring some families over others. But I’m happy to defend our record any day of the week. From tax-free childcare for every working family to an income tax cut for 25million people – from cutting fuel duty to freezing council tax – we’re doing something for all families even in these difficult times....Supporting marriage is part of that vision for Britain, recognising an institution that is all about commitment. I’m proud that we’re finally making this happen – and proud that we’re delivering on the promise I made.
The Tory leaderships counter intuitive support for same sex marriage and unseemly haste to force it on to the statute books against the wishes of a substantial section of their key activists and supporters at last makes some kind of sense as part of the wider plan as it helps with promoting the case for the return of married allowances. Married allowances though are an obsolete concept and their return greatly complicates the tax system once again for a relatively small return for the people who benefit. Weighing this up politically for the Tories as far as the 2015 election is concerned and despite Taffy's important observation below I suspect the losses in terms of membership defections and unnecessary momentum handed to UKIP (who seem unstoppable here in Kent - see local by-elections) ) unfortunately will outweigh the gains.
Hm, anyone know where one can get nominal results for new ward boundaries in the upcoming 2014 election? Are these even made?
Are there boundary changes underway?
There are always a number of councils undergoing ward/boundary reviews . 21 councils are in various stages of review currently
Are there any in London? Usually, London ward boundaries are all reviewed at once.
The last review was in time for the 2002 elections, so it's probably overdue.
Kensington/Chelsea has just finished . There are no other London councils currently under review nor in the next tranch of 26 where work has not yet started .
The tax-laws should not discriminate: They should be simple and fair; no more put the minimum required to maintain the state. Leave it to Gormless and his "feet-eating" goons to screw the tax-payer, the system and the greater society for their own, nefarious, ends....
I tried to edit my post to apologise unreservedly but it would not let me. I am in the same boat as you are, I lost my wife very suddenly and recently, so am aware of the benefits and their time limits I was actually trying to be helpful but I can see it did not read as such. it was a badly written comment and I am very sorry if it upset you.
No problem, SquareRoot. I can genuinely say "I know what you're going through".
By the way, if you have the misfortune as I did to be made redundant while still receiving BB, the BB is deducted from your JSA.
No I didn't know that, and that's mean. really mean. BB is taxable too which is very mean. I only work(ed) part time as my wife had a longstanding illness for which there was no cure There needs to be a new idiom people can use when offering consolation to the bereaved. "I know how you must be feeling" is just about the least true statement most can offer as they don't and cannot know unless its happened to them.. I found it really irritating...
Hm, anyone know where one can get nominal results for new ward boundaries in the upcoming 2014 election? Are these even made?
Are there boundary changes underway?
There are always a number of councils undergoing ward/boundary reviews . 21 councils are in various stages of review currently
Are there any in London? Usually, London ward boundaries are all reviewed at once.
The last review was in time for the 2002 elections, so it's probably overdue.
Kensington/Chelsea has just finished . There are no other London councils currently under review nor in the next tranch of 26 where work has not yet started .
Hackney and Tower Hamlets have also had recent reviews in London .
As expected, even when you give money away, all you get on the media are the moaners. Really, this marriage tax break is just a gesture, yet we have some woman's complaints on R5L being aired continually. Something to do with being judged ... Weird.
It may be wrong but everyone judges everyone else every time they meet. Anti-social behaviour is in the eye of the beholder. If someone pees on a war memorial, we line up to judge them.
I think marriage, both heterosexual and homosexual, is a stabilising influence so is good for that reason. It won't affect me, as my wife's allowance just covers her own pension, but it will help a few people. Why complain for the sake of it?
The Tory leaderships counter intuitive support for same sex marriage and unseemly haste to force it on to the statute books against the wishes of a substantial section of their key activists and supporters at last makes some kind of sense as part of the wider plan as it helps with promoting the case for the return of married allowances. Married allowances though are an obsolete concept and their return greatly complicates the tax system once again for a relatively small return for the people who benefit. Weighing this up politically for the Tories as far as the 2015 election is concerned and despite Taffy's important observation below I suspect the losses in terms of membership defections and unnecessary momentum handed to UKIP (who seem unstoppable here in Kent - see local by-elections) ) unfortunately will outweigh the gains.
Incidentally, it's never wise to treat newspaper web
sites comments as typical, but the marriage tax allowance proposal is getting a massive hammering from Mail readers, mostly from single people but also from people wondering where the money is coming from. I note Richard N's claim that Labour has given up on the deficit theme, but this proposal makes the Conservatives the only party to pledge a major deficit-increasing tax measure.
A couple of things.
1. I said I was expecting to get a giveaway tax cut from the Tories and I was right. I have no idea why they restricted it to married couples but I'm glad they have done it as my tax bills have never been higher thanks to Ozzy's insane shambling over CB. 2. I was right and the always-very-sure-of-himself Antifrank was wrong. I said that Ed's energy masterstroke would see the parties start trading blows over the cost of living, rather than deficit/austerity. With this move, the Tories can't bang on about the deficit with a straight-face, as it will directly result in a decrease in government revenue.
Since I've been predicting all week that George Osborne would be counterstriking on the cost of living crisis, I don't see where you get that from.
Austerity has not gone as a theme. You'll hear that word a lot more yet.
You told me I was "dead wrong" when I said the terms of battle had shifted.
Well, with this tax break they already have. We'll see how much "austerity" we hear about in the run-in to the election. We'll see...
You are dead wrong. The Conservatives are going to beating up Ed Miliband from now to the election on his inability to face up to the need for cuts. It will be as much about character as money, and it will be ugly.
By the way, it's good to see you keep up your lonely campaign for subsidised piano lessons for the children of the well-paid.
Oh stop being so sanctimonious - you have no idea what my family can afford (and we are nowhere near to being able to afford that). Until you tell us what marginal rates you are paying on your £500,000 pa income, you'll forgive me for not taking lessons from you on austerity.
That would take it to 22 races. Korea seems pretty like to drop off, and Mexico could likewise. New Jersey is still just a maybe, and I think India will cease to be visited in the near future.
Edited extra bit: India isn't on the 2014 calendar but my understanding is it'll return (with a new, early-season slot) in 2015.
I tried to edit my post to apologise unreservedly but it would not let me. I am in the same boat as you are, I lost my wife very suddenly and recently, so am aware of the benefits and their time limits I was actually trying to be helpful but I can see it did not read as such. it was a badly written comment and I am very sorry if it upset you.
No problem, SquareRoot. I can genuinely say "I know what you're going through".
By the way, if you have the misfortune as I did to be made redundant while still receiving BB, the BB is deducted from your JSA.
No I didn't know that, and that's mean. really mean. BB is taxable too which is very mean. I only work(ed) part time as my wife had a longstanding illness for which there was no cure There needs to be a new idiom people can use when offering consolation to the bereaved. "I know how you must be feeling" is just about the least true statement most can offer as they don't and cannot know unless its happened to them.. I found it really irritating...
For the avoidance of doubt, I know people mean well when they say it, its just that it grated after a while.
The Tory leaderships counter intuitive support for same sex marriage and unseemly haste to force it on to the statute books against the wishes of a substantial section of their key activists and supporters at last makes some kind of sense as part of the wider plan as it helps with promoting the case for the return of married allowances. Married allowances though are an obsolete concept and their return greatly complicates the tax system once again for a relatively small return for the people who benefit. Weighing this up politically for the Tories as far as the 2015 election is concerned and despite Taffy's important observation below I suspect the losses in terms of membership defections and unnecessary momentum handed to UKIP (who seem unstoppable here in Kent - see local by-elections) ) unfortunately will outweigh the gains.
Why do you think UKIP are performing so well in Kent?
@Bobajob Until you understand that, for example, loss of pension relief might cost someone far more than a given marginal rate, you're not going to get very far.
Like everyone else, you'd like more money. I can't blame you for that. We all feel that way. But to feel that you deserve to keep state subsidies when you're a higher rate taxpayer and when far more sweeping cuts are taking place on the low paid is absurd. You deserve all the mockery that I have given you on the subject.
I tried to edit my post to apologise unreservedly but it would not let me. I am in the same boat as you are, I lost my wife very suddenly and recently, so am aware of the benefits and their time limits I was actually trying to be helpful but I can see it did not read as such. it was a badly written comment and I am very sorry if it upset you.
No problem, SquareRoot. I can genuinely say "I know what you're going through".
By the way, if you have the misfortune as I did to be made redundant while still receiving BB, the BB is deducted from your JSA.
No I didn't know that, and that's mean. really mean. BB is taxable too which is very mean. I only work(ed) part time as my wife had a longstanding illness for which there was no cure There needs to be a new idiom people can use when offering consolation to the bereaved. "I know how you must be feeling" is just about the least true statement most can offer as they don't and cannot know unless its happened to them.. I found it really irritating...
his tax break is NOT available to families where one parent pays the Higher Rate. Ozzy's smashing of the squeezed middle continues. The guy is a tool.
Maybe, but its smart politics for the time being. The tories have to avoid the charge they are the party of the rich, and working people on modest incomes are the key to the election.
I note Richard N's claim that Labour has given up on the deficit theme, but this proposal makes the Conservatives the only party to pledge a major deficit-increasing tax measure.
Calling this very marginal measure a 'major deficit-increasing tax measure' is going it a bit. The only people affected are not very well-off households (one income only, paying basic-rate tax), to the tune of a maximum of £200 a year. And of course, as with all tax measures, you have to look at the whole picture, you can't just look at one tax measure (such as the increase in personal allowances, worth £1700 a year to every basic-rate tax payer, or the increases in CGT or VAT, or the elimination of VAT relief on listed-building alterations. In particular, it does seem a bit unfair that single-income, modestly-paid households have not benefited from the big increase in personal allowances as much as dual-income households, and this measure goes a little way towards redressing that and reducing the unfairness in the tax system.
@Bobajob Until you understand that, for example, loss of pension relief might cost someone far more than a given marginal rate, you're not going to get very far.
Like everyone else, you'd like more money. I can't blame you for that. We all feel that way. But to feel that you deserve to keep state subsidies when you're a higher rate taxpayer and when far more sweeping cuts are taking place on the low paid is absurd. You deserve all the mockery that I have given you on the subject.
Once again I ask what marginal rate of income tax you are paying on your £500k pa. It's not a difficult question, yet you refuse to answer it. I have a kid to bring up in London, a future taxpayer who will help fund services when we retire. I understand you have no children.
I don't begrudge you your very high income. What does stick in the craw is you lecturing me (and others) on why 70% marginal rates are acceptable for families on a tenth of your income, in almost the same breath as you publicly muse on what to do with your second London flat.
It would be more cost effective to get the Vicar to hand the newly married couple the £200. Perhaps they should then have to return to the church on their anniversary to renew their vows or to cancel them. That £200 is going to make their decision much more difficult !
As expected, even when you give money away, all you get on the media are the moaners. Really, this marriage tax break is just a gesture, yet we have some woman's complaints on R5L being aired continually. Something to do with being judged ... Weird.
It may be wrong but everyone judges everyone else every time they meet. Anti-social behaviour is in the eye of the beholder. If someone pees on a war memorial, we line up to judge them.
I think marriage, both heterosexual and homosexual, is a stabilising influence so is good for that reason. It won't affect me, as my wife's allowance just covers her own pension, but it will help a few people. Why complain for the sake of it?
Governments don't give money away, they make taxpayers give money away. This may be "just a gesture" to you; it's my money to me.
It would be more cost effective to get the Vicar to hand the newly married couple the £200. Perhaps they should then have to return to the church on their anniversary to renew their vows or to cancel them. That £200 is going to make their decision much more difficult !
Out of curiosity - are you married? Would you have got married for an extra £200? If you are and wouldn't - what are you fussing about? It's a very small sum to recognise a family unit that on balance gives its offspring a better start in life - even if the parents divorce within 5yrs of their birth.
I think that's worth £200 to the least well off couples who choose to make a sincere legal commitment - even if it doesn't work out as planned.
@Bobajob Keep missing the point. Why focus on the marginal rate when you should be focussing on the absolute amounts of tax recovered? Would you prefer me to be paying a 90% rate of income tax and less tax in absolute terms?
It's not a difficult concept, but you refuse to understand it.
@Bobajob Keep missing the point. Why focus on the marginal rate when you should be focussing on the absolute amounts of tax recovered? Would you prefer me to be paying a 90% rate of income tax and less tax in absolute terms?
It's not a difficult concept, but you refuse to understand it.
I will lose 70p in the pound of any pay rise I get this year. It's not a difficult concept but you refuse to understand it.
I want the assistance of your grade A legal mind on a betting related matter, and for reasons that will become obvious I don't want it discussed in open forum.
As expected, even when you give money away, all you get on the media are the moaners. Really, this marriage tax break is just a gesture, yet we have some woman's complaints on R5L being aired continually. Something to do with being judged ... Weird.
It may be wrong but everyone judges everyone else every time they meet. Anti-social behaviour is in the eye of the beholder. If someone pees on a war memorial, we line up to judge them.
I think marriage, both heterosexual and homosexual, is a stabilising influence so is good for that reason. It won't affect me, as my wife's allowance just covers her own pension, but it will help a few people. Why complain for the sake of it?
Governments don't give money away, they make taxpayers give money away. This may be "just a gesture" to you; it's my money to me.
That is so. OTOH, my money goes on all sorts of things I don't like. I've no particular objection to this. If upper-middle class married couples get huge tax breaks for IHT and CGT, then it seems only fair that people lower down the pecking order should get something.
"This may be "just a gesture" to you; it's my money to me."
On that basis, the government should never give money to any group unless you're a member. You may be in the majority, I don't know.
Motherhood gets money in the form of CB ( apple pies haven't done yet). Childless couples should therefore complain. Education gets a massive subsidy ... but not everyone is involved, so they should therefore complain. Unless the reason is that the people left out disapprove of the other group? I might well disapprove of money being spent on promoting Satanism, I suppose. However, someone getting money for something which on the whole benefits society isn't one I'd care to make a fuss about.
As ever, an interesting article by David H, but I'm not sure I buy his analysis, at least as it relates to Ed Miliband.
snip
It might work, of course; inventing scapegoats is the oldest trick in the book, and has worked for countless demagogues in the past. That he has chosen to make as his centrepiece an irresponsible attack on much-needed investment, in a sector where the 'rip-off' actually comprises the second-lowest energy prices in Western Europe, tells you much about his utter lack of suitability for office.
I agree with most of what you say, especially as regards suitability for office.
I cling to the hope that this is all just cynical positioning and he really wouldn't try to govern in this fashion.
But we have seen time and time again with Labour - power and party is everything - the national interest features much lower on their list of priorities.
But whilst you can call Ed all sorts of things I wouldn't try and lump him in with demagogues.
More than 800 healthcare managers drank and partied the night away at taxpayers’ expense at London’s five-star Grosvenor House hotel.
They blew a whopping £3,000 a table to enjoy the annual Health Service Journal Efficiency Awards. Their jolly could have paid a year’s salary for 33 nurses, while Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt is under pressure to improve the performance of NHS managers.
The partygoers left at 2am after a three-course dinner and drinks reception to mark their achievements cutting costs. They then stayed at top hotels, including the Mayfair Hilton and Radisson Blu Portman, for “discounted” prices of up to £300 each. NHS trusts are believed to have footed the bill from their own budgets, with at least one admitting they had dipped into a charity fund.
North Bristol NHS Trust was slammed five years ago for spending just 50p a head on hospital meals. A spokeswoman said they did not pay for their staff members to drink alcohol or stay overnight.
She added: “North Bristol NHS Trust’s attendance at the event was under the lowest priced package at £2,490 without alcohol and was paid for by charitable funds.”
I'm always a little dubious about expensive award ceremonies, but that's a management decision. I am very surprised they thought it an appropriate use of charitable funds (and that they thought that it was a good defence of their actions!)
'I note Richard N's claim that Labour has given up on the deficit theme, but this proposal makes the Conservatives the only party to pledge a major deficit-increasing tax measure.'
Has Ed explained how his pledges of an 8-6 school day & 200,000 new houses a year will be paid for?
@Bobajob Keep missing the point. Why focus on the marginal rate when you should be focussing on the absolute amounts of tax recovered? Would you prefer me to be paying a 90% rate of income tax and less tax in absolute terms?
It's not a difficult concept, but you refuse to understand it.
I will lose 70p in the pound of any pay rise I get this year. It's not a difficult concept but you refuse to understand it.
As it happens, I think you should both pay less tax and have a lower marginal rate.
I would cap the tax rate at 30%, which is what most basic rate taxpayers effectively pay (tax plus NI). To afford that I would drastically cut tax credits and CB.
I note Richard N's claim that Labour has given up on the deficit theme, but this proposal makes the Conservatives the only party to pledge a major deficit-increasing tax measure.
Calling this very marginal measure a 'major deficit-increasing tax measure' is going it a bit. The only people affected are not very well-off households (one income only, paying basic-rate tax), to the tune of a maximum of £200 a year. And of course, as with all tax measures, you have to look at the whole picture, you can't just look at one tax measure (such as the increase in personal allowances, worth £1700 a year to every basic-rate tax payer, or the increases in CGT or VAT, or the elimination of VAT relief on listed-building alterations. In particular, it does seem a bit unfair that single-income, modestly-paid households have not benefited from the big increase in personal allowances as much as dual-income households, and this measure goes a little way towards redressing that and reducing the unfairness in the tax system.
The impact of the Council Tax freeze is not well commented on, but it is pretty big. I'll give an example and show why: Average Band D council tax was £1400 in 2010 if we assume a modest 3% increase per annum, which is reasonable to keep around inflation. Remember, CT has to increase every year just to stand still, it is an absolute amount not a percentage like VAt or income tax.
There are rumours that the gvt is extending the council tax freeze offer for councils up to the end of the parliament.
So what we see here is a £222 a year reduction in council tax with what it would have been (though its a freeze). Savings: 11: £42, 12: £85 13: £130 14: £175 15: £222
Total council tax saved due to coalition policy: Band D £654
Out of curiosity - are you married? Would you have got married for an extra £200? If you are and wouldn't - what are you fussing about? It's a very small sum to recognise a family unit that on balance gives its offspring a better start in life - even if the parents divorce within 5yrs of their birth.
I think that's worth £200 to the least well off couples who choose to make a sincere legal commitment - even if it doesn't work out as planned.
If the tax regime is supposed to reward good behaviour, and the money on offer is not enough to make them behave in that way, surely it is pointless?
My objection is not so much the tax break per se, but that I will be effectively paying tax to give a tax break to couples who are better off than me.
1) Because the way it is going to be implemented is a nightmare. 2) Our socially liberal press and commitariat will hate it 3) Those who are widowed or partner has left them will REALLY hate it 4) Those who benefit won't really care 5) And probably would have been more interested the money going elsewhere 6) Which is a disaster if it is a signature policy which it is - defined against Clegg 7) It reinforces the idea that the Tories are slightly other worldly in their views
I'm not sure you can have it both ways. CP's are supposed to be heading towards having the same rights as marriage (correctly, in my view). Saying that people who are not willing to take that further step of lifelong commitment should be treated the same as those who are seems strange.
The whole thing's a mess, but I'm not sure that's the solution.
It's not me that's having it both ways. The point is that this proposal benefits CPs but excludes straight couples with precisely the same degree of commitment. No doubt other examples will follow, because governments won't want to discriminate against CPs. We've taken a collective decision to equalise partnerships at the marriage level, and sooner or later people will want to do the same at the "not yet marriage" level.
By the way, Alan's personal tragedy dwarfs anything we talk about, and the fact that he mentioned it as an example doesn't mean it's open season to badger him about whether he took beareavement allowance etc. His replies have been vety patient. This is supposed to be a friendly site, not bloody Guido.
Nick, I really wish you hadn't written that last paragraph in reply to my post, as it reads as if I was doing it. Not sure if that's what you intended ...
Needless to say, sympathies to Alan and Squareroot.
Marriage tax break is a disaster policy for the Tories. If you are going to do something like this you absolutely have to nail it.
I'm not sure about that - it may well be popular.
But in any case this is where the thread header comes in. Each of the two main parties will be doing well to hit 35% in the election. A good result for either requires the support of barely more than one-third of the electorate. It doesn't matter if a majority think your policies are shit, as long as it's popular with the people you need to be in the upper 30s not the lower 30s.
I bet that Clegg spent all night laughing after he struck this deal. I think he has probably saved 10 Lib Dem MPs seats in Con/Tory marginals with this.
I'm always a little dubious about expensive award ceremonies, but that's a management decision.
It is if you are a manager of a privately owned organisation, but not if you disburse taxpayers' funds. Given how much the public sector is being screwed down in terms of costs (they have even got rid of water coolers where I work) it seems pretty indefensible to me.
I am very surprised they thought it an appropriate use of charitable funds (and that they thought that it was a good defence of their actions!)
Indeed, I would have thought a referral to the Charities Commission would be in order.
I do not think it a particularly wise policy, and if I were doing it would do it differently. We already have tax credits and other overlapping systems , making for needless complexity.
It was a manifesto pledge, so I can see the merit of being a government that does what it says on the tin. Establishing that promises will be honored is a political priority nessecary to help reestablish the competence tag.
The lines will be being drawn up on this already. "We are the party that delivers, the others are a bunch of shysters" . Not nice, but that is politics!
1) Because the way it is going to be implemented is a nightmare. 2) Our socially liberal press and commitariat will hate it 3) Those who are widowed or partner has left them will REALLY hate it 4) Those who benefit won't really care 5) And probably would have been more interested the money going elsewhere 6) Which is a disaster if it is a signature policy which it is - defined against Clegg 7) It reinforces the idea that the Tories are slightly other worldly in their views
Marriage tax break is a disaster policy for the Tories. If you are going to do something like this you absolutely have to nail it.
Clegg got the free school meals deal. A great policy and politically smart for allowing Cameron to harm himself. What a politician!
Why do you see this as a disaster for the Conservatives?
An interesting question - anyone know the answer?
Guido Fawkes @GuidoFawkes Can anyone name a single OECD country that doesn't either give tax breaks for children or married couples? Labour out on their own here.
Having read David's ever thoughtful piece twice, the one thing I would say is that he underestimates the degree to which people vote against parties rather than for them. This is why the Liberal Democrats and now UKIP prosper because they can be both anti-Conservative and anti-Labour at the same time. The duopoly is as much built on mutual antipathy which creates mutual support. In extremis, Conservative and Labour can be seen to work together (though they do to a much greater extent behind the scenes than is realised by most people) and the electorate will support it but democracy functions from being adversarial as much as it does from being consensual.
Ed Miliband has re-ignited the adversarial nature of politics this week and it will be meat and drink for those who enjoy the knockabout and the insults. From "Butskellism" onwards, periods where the two main parties have been broadly similar have not always worked well and in a plural democratic environment there have to be a number of different and diverging visions.
Given the contradictory nature of the public's desire, it's no surprise that no one size fits all. Parties stress the popular aspects of their programme but they know (as I know) that in order for their programme to be coherent and credible, it needs to include some things which will either be slightly universally unpopular or incredibly unpopular with a significant minority.
"This may be "just a gesture" to you; it's my money to me."
On that basis, the government should never give money to any group unless you're a member. You may be in the majority, I don't know.
Motherhood gets money in the form of CB ( apple pies haven't done yet). Childless couples should therefore complain. Education gets a massive subsidy ... but not everyone is involved, so they should therefore complain. Unless the reason is that the people left out disapprove of the other group? I might well disapprove of money being spent on promoting Satanism, I suppose. However, someone getting money for something which on the whole benefits society isn't one I'd care to make a fuss about.
But each to their own.
I
Not my point at all. My objection was to your starting "even if you give money away..." as if this was an act of generosity by anyone. It isn't and the measure should not be viewed as if it were. I have no strong feelings either way on tax breaks for the married except to think it's all a lot of fuss about not very much and simply political positioning by Cameron.
I sadly missed out on this shindig, but such ceremonies do have a role in spreading good practice.
Management teams will have networked with their counterparts in other Trusts, to share and copy good practice. Ideas need to spread if the worst inefficiencies in the NHS are to be eliminated.
If average bed stays come down by a fraction of a fraction of a percent then the money will be returned manyfold.
I'm always a little dubious about expensive award ceremonies, but that's a management decision.
It is if you are a manager of a privately owned organisation, but not if you disburse taxpayers' funds. Given how much the public sector is being screwed down in terms of costs (they have even got rid of water coolers where I work) it seems pretty indefensible to me.
I am very surprised they thought it an appropriate use of charitable funds (and that they thought that it was a good defence of their actions!)
Indeed, I would have thought a referral to the Charities Commission would be in order.
I can't see many people disagreeing with this. And as if on cue, here's a link to Christian Nock's Facebook page. Christian is currently walking around the coast of Britain, sleeping rough every night to raise money and awareness of homelessness amongst ex-servicemen. He's currently in Durness in northern Scotland. Lucky guy. https://www.facebook.com/christian.britain.3.
'1) Because the way it is going to be implemented is a nightmare. 2) Our socially liberal press and commitariat will hate it 3) Those who are widowed or partner has left them will REALLY hate it 4) Those who benefit won't really care 5) And probably would have been more interested the money going elsewhere 6) Which is a disaster if it is a signature policy which it is - defined against Clegg 7) It reinforces the idea that the Tories are slightly other worldly in their views
8)The British public hate morality in politics 9)Polly Toynbe won't like it 10) Nobody wants to pay less tax
I sadly missed out on this shindig, but such ceremonies do have a role in spreading good practice.
Management teams will have networked with their counterparts in other Trusts, to share and copy good practice. Ideas need to spread if the worst inefficiencies in the NHS are to be eliminated.
If average bed stays come down by a fraction of a fraction of a percent then the money will be returned manyfold.
I quite agree with you on networking, having (briefly) worked in an NHS trust it seemed to be infected with "not invented here" syndrome. Networking is vital, at its most basic it is not sensible to reinvent something yourself when someone else has already done it better. However, this does seem at odds with the type of cost cutting experienced elsewhere in the public sector.
I sadly missed out on this shindig, but such ceremonies do have a role in spreading good practice.
Management teams will have networked with their counterparts in other Trusts, to share and copy good practice. Ideas need to spread if the worst inefficiencies in the NHS are to be eliminated.
If average bed stays come down by a fraction of a fraction of a percent then the money will be returned manyfold.
I quite agree with you on networking, having (briefly) worked in an NHS trust it seemed to be infected with "not invented here" syndrome. Networking is vital, at its most basic it is not sensible to reinvent something yourself when someone else has already done it better. However, this does seem at odds with the type of cost cutting experienced elsewhere in the public sector.
I think point 1 is substantive enough as to why it is a bad policy. The rest are why it's a disaster politically. But if you want to think that this is the magic bullet that will stop the Tories going 30 years without a majority in this country then be my guest.
We've taken a collective decision to equalise partnerships at the marriage level, and sooner or later people will want to do the same at the "not yet marriage" level.
Although we haven't equalised gay and straight couples have we? The rules for same-sex and opposite-sex couples are going to be different. For example, I believe adultery and non-consummation will continue to be grounds for dissolution of a marriage if you are straight, but not if you are gay.
So we will have three statuses:
Civil Partnership 1.0 (for gays only) Civil Partnership 2.0, known as marriage (for gays) Marriage 1.0 (for straights)
So not equal at all. The rules are going to be different for gay and straight couples, and we will possibly still have CPs (I don't think the decision has been made yet) despite the fact that a gay marriage will be closer to a CP than a straight one.
I would have equalised the rules by abolishing marriage, and opening CPs to straight couples.
I sadly missed out on this shindig, but such ceremonies do have a role in spreading good practice.
Management teams will have networked with their counterparts in other Trusts, to share and copy good practice. Ideas need to spread if the worst inefficiencies in the NHS are to be eliminated.
If average bed stays come down by a fraction of a fraction of a percent then the money will be returned manyfold.
I quite agree with you on networking, having (briefly) worked in an NHS trust it seemed to be infected with "not invented here" syndrome. Networking is vital, at its most basic it is not sensible to reinvent something yourself when someone else has already done it better. However, this does seem at odds with the type of cost cutting experienced elsewhere in the public sector.
‘At odds with cost cutting elsewhere?’ – Let’s not beat about the bush here, if the article is to be believed, it appears to have been an extravagantly and gross misappropriation of Tax payer and Charity money, signed off by NHS managers , for the benefit of NHS managers.
British politics is all about moral arguments - ultimately based on the premise of greater good though mostly unconsciously so.
The reason conservatives (small c) have been losing the culture war for the last 50 years is they don't get that. Traditional conservative morality derived from trial and error and is defended on the basis of traditional authority rather than on first principles. Those underlying principles do exist however because otherwise trial and error wouldn't have produced the end result.
So if small c conservatives figure out the underlying principles behind why traditional morality developed the way it did and then argue that alternate moral case from first principles on the basis of greater good and then they'll stop losing the culture war.
"put crudely, the population at large is some way to the left of the political class’ median on economic matters and some way to the right on social ones."
Not sure about this. Politicians have to think in a different way to the population at large. On economics, say, the population resents taxation more than the average MP, but it also values expensive state projects like the NHS. They can think that way because they mostly don't have to reconcile those beliefs into actions, but politicians do, so it's hard to compare their opinions when one group expects to be held to account for them one day.
If people's views on politics were stronger, this divergence would matter, but it doesn't much because most people seem to attach low importance to most of their political opinions. Consider that most people have never thought about or discussed, say, trade protectionism, or sentencing, for an hour at a time. People don't like privatisation, but they don't like government bureaucracies. When confronted with such questions, no wonder we trust in representative democracy, our local representative, and the big political parties, more than in individual and distant leaders (let alone in their ideas themselves).
And sure, there are the George Galloways of the world, but perhaps people don't regard them so highly as actual politicians, but as scourges, to be applied in small doses to the well-educated politicians who are trusted to do the business of politics in 95% of cases. When working-class people look for an accountant or solicitor, they don't choose on the basis of social similarity, but on quality and professionalism; as politics becomes more professional and managerial and the working-class becomes smaller and more diverse, why are we surprised that they let PPE grads annex their safe seats?
@Bobajob Until you understand that, for example, loss of pension relief might cost someone far more than a given marginal rate, you're not going to get very far.
Like everyone else, you'd like more money. I can't blame you for that. We all feel that way. But to feel that you deserve to keep state subsidies when you're a higher rate taxpayer and when far more sweeping cuts are taking place on the low paid is absurd. You deserve all the mockery that I have given you on the subject.
Once again I ask what marginal rate of income tax you are paying on your £500k pa. It's not a difficult question, yet you refuse to answer it. I have a kid to bring up in London, a future taxpayer who will help fund services when we retire. I understand you have no children.
I don't begrudge you your very high income. What does stick in the craw is you lecturing me (and others) on why 70% marginal rates are acceptable for families on a tenth of your income, in almost the same breath as you publicly muse on what to do with your second London flat.
The answer is that it will be complicated to calculate, but essentially will be:
I can be understand nonconsummation because of definitions, but why not adultery? Or is consummation required with another party required in law for adultery to have occurred?
We've taken a collective decision to equalise partnerships at the marriage level, and sooner or later people will want to do the same at the "not yet marriage" level.
Although we haven't equalised gay and straight couples have we? The rules for same-sex and opposite-sex couples are going to be different. For example, I believe adultery and non-consummation will continue to be grounds for dissolution of a marriage if you are straight, but not if you are gay.
So we will have three statuses:
Civil Partnership 1.0 (for gays only) Civil Partnership 2.0, known as marriage (for gays) Marriage 1.0 (for straights)
So not equal at all. The rules are going to be different for gay and straight couples, and we will possibly still have CPs (I don't think the decision has been made yet) despite the fact that a gay marriage will be closer to a CP than a straight one.
I would have equalised the rules by abolishing marriage, and opening CPs to straight couples.
As a widower, I find Osborne's pro-marriage tax policy really offensive. Losing your wife is pretty shit, I can tell you, and now I'm officially a second-class citizen. Thanks, George - the nasty party is back with a vengeance.
It's sad that you have lost your wife - but are you really saying that a policy which encourages commitment is 'nasty'? I think some sense of proportion is needed.
NOA
Are you under the age of 65? Did you get bereavement allowance and bereavement payment, which is FAR in excess of the piddling tax break Dave is offering.
I did actually, not that it's really any of your business. Wasn't I lucky to be widowed before 65? Those benefits are based on NI contributions paid, anyway. And compare the amounts to what the government has saved in State Pension.
I still have my wife and still am second class citizen and well sick of paying thousands a month in tax and getting diddly squat , ie absolutely nothing.
As a widower, I find Osborne's pro-marriage tax policy really offensive. Losing your wife is pretty shit, I can tell you, and now I'm officially a second-class citizen. Thanks, George - the nasty party is back with a vengeance.
It's sad that you have lost your wife - but are you really saying that a policy which encourages commitment is 'nasty'? I think some sense of proportion is needed.
NOA
Are you under the age of 65? Did you get bereavement allowance and bereavement payment, which is FAR in excess of the piddling tax break Dave is offering.
I did actually, not that it's really any of your business. Wasn't I lucky to be widowed before 65? Those benefits are based on NI contributions paid, anyway. And compare the amounts to what the government has saved in State Pension.
It was not meant to offend. . I only wanted to ask you if you had claimed the benefit as they are time limited to 12 months post the passing of the spouse. I agree about the marriage tax break, its ludicrous posturing
Everything this bunch of losers does is just to suit some focus group and get some publicity, little real thought put into anything.
Sure, but that was just as true of the other parties conferences.
We are 18 months off an election that is likely to be close. We are going to have a surfeit of poorly thought through populism, even more so from the parties small enough to know that they will not need to deliver.
As a widower, I find Osborne's pro-marriage tax policy really offensive. Losing your wife is pretty shit, I can tell you, and now I'm officially a second-class citizen. Thanks, George - the nasty party is back with a vengeance.
It's sad that you have lost your wife - but are you really saying that a policy which encourages commitment is 'nasty'? I think some sense of proportion is needed.
NOA
Are you under the age of 65? Did you get bereavement allowance and bereavement payment, which is FAR in excess of the piddling tax break Dave is offering.
I did actually, not that it's really any of your business. Wasn't I lucky to be widowed before 65? Those benefits are based on NI contributions paid, anyway. And compare the amounts to what the government has saved in State Pension.
It was not meant to offend. . I only wanted to ask you if you had claimed the benefit as they are time limited to 12 months post the passing of the spouse. I agree about the marriage tax break, its ludicrous posturing
Everything this bunch of losers does is just to suit some focus group and get some publicity, little real thought put into anything.
I'm not sure you can have it both ways. CP's are supposed to be heading towards having the same rights as marriage (correctly, in my view). Saying that people who are not willing to take that further step of lifelong commitment should be treated the same as those who are seems strange.
The whole thing's a mess, but I'm not sure that's the solution.
It's not me that's having it both ways. The point is that this proposal benefits CPs but excludes straight couples with precisely the same degree of commitment. No doubt other examples will follow, because governments won't want to discriminate against CPs. We've taken a collective decision to equalise partnerships at the marriage level, and sooner or later people will want to do the same at the "not yet marriage" level.
By the way, Alan's personal tragedy dwarfs anything we talk about, and the fact that he mentioned it as an example doesn't mean it's open season to badger him about whether he took beareavement allowance etc. His replies have been vety patient. This is supposed to be a friendly site, not bloody Guido.
Nick, I really wish you hadn't written that last paragraph in reply to my post, as it reads as if I was doing it. Not sure if that's what you intended ...
Needless to say, sympathies to Alan and Squareroot.
It was a crass statement , absolutely nobody so far has done any badgering , usual PC clowns trying to stop free speech.
I can't see many people disagreeing with this. And as if on cue, here's a link to Christian Nock's Facebook page. Christian is currently walking around the coast of Britain, sleeping rough every night to raise money and awareness of homelessness amongst ex-servicemen. He's currently in Durness in northern Scotland. Lucky guy. https://www.facebook.com/christian.britain.3.
(Edited for correct amount)
I for one would complain about it , why should I be paying to buy someone else a house. They want to join the forces go ahead does not make them special in my eyes , it is just another career choice and no way I should be subsidising them. More focus group policies , I am almost at the stage I want Labour back in rather than these bleeding heart numpties.
How is life in UKIP? Are they set up well organisationallly? Would you say you have been able to find your part to play yet?
I've done nothing except go to the Conference last Saturday. Organisationally, they are light years ahead of where they were two years ago, but still a long way from where they need to be.
I can be understand nonconsummation because of definitions, but why not adultery? Or is consummation required with another party required in law for adultery to have occurred?
We've taken a collective decision to equalise partnerships at the marriage level, and sooner or later people will want to do the same at the "not yet marriage" level.
Although we haven't equalised gay and straight couples have we? The rules for same-sex and opposite-sex couples are going to be different. For example, I believe adultery and non-consummation will continue to be grounds for dissolution of a marriage if you are straight, but not if you are gay.
So we will have three statuses:
Civil Partnership 1.0 (for gays only) Civil Partnership 2.0, known as marriage (for gays) Marriage 1.0 (for straights)
So not equal at all. The rules are going to be different for gay and straight couples, and we will possibly still have CPs (I don't think the decision has been made yet) despite the fact that a gay marriage will be closer to a CP than a straight one.
I would have equalised the rules by abolishing marriage, and opening CPs to straight couples.
The definitions of both consummation and adultery come from the trial of Anne Boleyn.
In many ways it is actually Clegg's LDs who now occupy the middle ground. Left-wingers have now moved from the LDs back to Labour precisely because Ed Miliband has moved Labour back to the centre-left, while David Cameron, having initially moved the Tories to the centre to take over the ground vacated by Blair has now moved the Tories back to the centre-right to win back votes lost to the more rightwing UKIP. Indeed, there was a recent article in the Times in which it was said Blairites now consider Nick Clegg the true 'heir to Blair.' http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/rachelsylvester/article3870955.ece
I can't see many people disagreeing with this. And as if on cue, here's a link to Christian Nock's Facebook page. Christian is currently walking around the coast of Britain, sleeping rough every night to raise money and awareness of homelessness amongst ex-servicemen. He's currently in Durness in northern Scotland. Lucky guy. https://www.facebook.com/christian.britain.3.
(Edited for correct amount)
I for one would complain about it , why should I be paying to buy someone else a house. They want to join the forces go ahead does not make them special in my eyes , it is just another career choice and no way I should be subsidising them. More focus group policies , I am almost at the stage I want Labour back in rather than these bleeding heart numpties.
For many in the forces, the role requires frequent moves nationally and internationally. Lenders are rather reticent to lend to people who move around so much, and so this deal could help some of the relatively low-paid servicemen and women get a home. It may also help lower costs in other ways, and reduce the scandal of homeless squaddies (*).
It's a small amount, and seems like a good idea to me, although the devil will be in the details You are naturally free to disagree, although I suspect it's a move that Salmond and the SNP would agree with.
(*) I use the word squaddies as shorthand for all the armed services.
I can't see many people disagreeing with this. And as if on cue, here's a link to Christian Nock's Facebook page. Christian is currently walking around the coast of Britain, sleeping rough every night to raise money and awareness of homelessness amongst ex-servicemen. He's currently in Durness in northern Scotland. Lucky guy. https://www.facebook.com/christian.britain.3.
(Edited for correct amount)
I for one would complain about it , why should I be paying to buy someone else a house. They want to join the forces go ahead does not make them special in my eyes , it is just another career choice and no way I should be subsidising them. More focus group policies , I am almost at the stage I want Labour back in rather than these bleeding heart numpties.
For many in the forces, the role requires frequent moves nationally and internationally. Lenders are rather reticent to lend to people who move around so much, and so this deal could help some of the relatively low-paid servicemen and women get a home. It may also help lower costs in other ways, and reduce the scandal of homeless squaddies (*).
It's a small amount, and seems like a good idea to me, although the devil will be in the details You are naturally free to disagree, although I suspect it's a move that Salmond and the SNP would agree with.
(*) I use the word squaddies as shorthand for all the armed services.
Why would someone who moves around a lot buy a house?
David Herdson's and Manson's preceding article are spot on. There is no middle ground. In short the public have always been to the right on personal issues and left on collective issues. Blair's triangulation created a false prophecy built on 90's Tory market failure which EdM has picked up on and left a public tired of heirs to Blair's (Cameron) and professional or out of touch politicians.
I wondered how long it would take for the commentariat to catch up with EdM and as Cruddas has said, the ball is only just beginning to roll following a two year rebuild of heavily defeated Party. As Labour insiders have said, Labour has done it's 'future proof' homework, read well ahead of the curve so a Tory Party taking on Labour today is a Tory Party chasing the opposition.
It's quite something to have most of the commentariat still scratching around in an undergrowth of prickly bushes at night time with broken torches looking for where this is all heading. As Herdson and Manson suggest, they are still way off any political analysis that reflects EdM's grasp of the political reality facing ordinary people and how they are likely to respond.
I think Roberts Fabian article is correct. Exactly 15m people voted consecutively Lib/Lab at the last three elections, that isn't going to change but if it does only towards the 19m of 1997. What underscores EdM is people do not want the free wheeler dealer markets of the last 30 years. They never did with hindsight. They feel not only has it not worked for them but there have been toxic consequences. Longer hours, poorer conditions, more insecurity, an end to lifetime jobs, champagne for the rich and Rackman landlords for the poor. That they are losing and everyone/all politicians have been on the side of the big boys.
I hope the right continue the left right analysis. The public aren't listening.
@Bobajob Until you understand that, for example, loss of pension relief might cost someone far more than a given marginal rate, you're not going to get very far.
Like everyone else, you'd like more money. I can't blame you for that. We all feel that way. But to feel that you deserve to keep state subsidies when you're a higher rate taxpayer and when far more sweeping cuts are taking place on the low paid is absurd. You deserve all the mockery that I have given you on the subject.
Once again I ask what marginal rate of income tax you are paying on your £500k pa. It's not a difficult question, yet you refuse to answer it. I have a kid to bring up in London, a future taxpayer who will help fund services when we retire. I understand you have no children.
I don't begrudge you your very high income. What does stick in the craw is you lecturing me (and others) on why 70% marginal rates are acceptable for families on a tenth of your income, in almost the same breath as you publicly muse on what to do with your second London flat.
The answer is that it will be complicated to calculate, but essentially will be:
I'm always a little dubious about expensive award ceremonies, but that's a management decision.
It is if you are a manager of a privately owned organisation, but not if you disburse taxpayers' funds. Given how much the public sector is being screwed down in terms of costs (they have even got rid of water coolers where I work) it seems pretty indefensible to me.
I am very surprised they thought it an appropriate use of charitable funds (and that they thought that it was a good defence of their actions!)
Indeed, I would have thought a referral to the Charities Commission would be in order.
Just before I retired from the NHS as a prescribing advisor I was called into the Financial Directors office. He told me that he and (I subsequently discovered) his team had been to a function organised by the Trusts auditors. At this function, which was free and apparently quite alcoholic he had been approached by a pharmaceutical company which was one of the sponsors who had suggested tht the use of their products would reduce or prescribing budget. Why, he wanted to know, wasn't I recommending the products? I explained the several reasons and went on to ask whether he thought it was right for the Trust's auditors to run a sponsored function, and invite their clients for free drinks. We parted on bad terms!
David Herdson's and Manson's preceding article are spot on. There is no middle ground. In short the public have always been to the right on personal issues and left on collective issues. Blair's triangulation created a false prophecy built on 90's Tory market failure which EdM has picked up on and left a public tired of heirs to Blair's (Cameron) and professional or out of touch politicians.
I wondered how long it would take for the commentariat to catch up with EdM and as Cruddas has said, the ball is only just beginning to roll following a two year rebuild of heavily defeated Party. As Labour insiders have said, Labour has done it's 'future proof' homework, read well ahead of the curve so a Tory Party taking on Labour today is a Tory Party chasing the opposition.
It's quite something to have most of the commentariat still scratching around in an undergrowth of prickly bushes at night time with broken torches looking for where this is all heading. As Herdson and Manson suggest, they are still way off any political analysis that reflects EdM's grasp of the political reality facing ordinary people and how they are likely to respond.
I think Roberts Fabian article is correct. Exactly 15m people voted consecutively Lib/Lab at the last three elections, that isn't going to change but if it does only towards the 19m of 1997. What underscores EdM is people do not want the free wheeler dealer markets of the last 30 years. They never did with hindsight. They feel not only has it not worked for them but there have been toxic consequences. Longer hours, poorer conditions, more insecurity, an end to lifetime jobs, champagne for the rich and Rackman landlords for the poor. That they are losing and everyone/all politicians have been on the side of the big boys.
I hope the right continue the left right analysis. The public aren't listening.
A lot of those champagne drinkers seem to be public sector employees.
@Bobajob Until you understand that, for example, loss of pension relief might cost someone far more than a given marginal rate, you're not going to get very far.
Like everyone else, you'd like more money. I can't blame you for that. We all feel that way. But to feel that you deserve to keep state subsidies when you're a higher rate taxpayer and when far more sweeping cuts are taking place on the low paid is absurd. You deserve all the mockery that I have given you on the subject.
Once again I ask what marginal rate of income tax you are paying on your £500k pa. It's not a difficult question, yet you refuse to answer it. I have a kid to bring up in London, a future taxpayer who will help fund services when we retire. I understand you have no children.
I don't begrudge you your very high income. What does stick in the craw is you lecturing me (and others) on why 70% marginal rates are acceptable for families on a tenth of your income, in almost the same breath as you publicly muse on what to do with your second London flat.
The answer is that it will be complicated to calculate, but essentially will be:
Without being a tax expert, anyone can contribute upto £50K towards pension and save 50K * 45% = £22,500.
Also, you can take advantage of annual gift allowances [ CGT ], giving away property to children or anyone else [ and, survive a maximum of 7 years afterwards.
In addition, the annual capital gains allowance is £10900 per person.
The marginal rate of tax would end up well below 40%. Against 70% for those earning between £50k and £60k.
There are numpties here who thought Rachel Reeves made a gaffe when she referred to someone earning £60k as not being rich.
That was an intentional gaffe, if indeed it was one.
I can't see many people disagreeing with this. And as if on cue, here's a link to Christian Nock's Facebook page. Christian is currently walking around the coast of Britain, sleeping rough every night to raise money and awareness of homelessness amongst ex-servicemen. He's currently in Durness in northern Scotland. Lucky guy. https://www.facebook.com/christian.britain.3.
(Edited for correct amount)
I for one would complain about it , why should I be paying to buy someone else a house. They want to join the forces go ahead does not make them special in my eyes , it is just another career choice and no way I should be subsidising them. More focus group policies , I am almost at the stage I want Labour back in rather than these bleeding heart numpties.
For many in the forces, the role requires frequent moves nationally and internationally. Lenders are rather reticent to lend to people who move around so much, and so this deal could help some of the relatively low-paid servicemen and women get a home. It may also help lower costs in other ways, and reduce the scandal of homeless squaddies (*).
It's a small amount, and seems like a good idea to me, although the devil will be in the details You are naturally free to disagree, although I suspect it's a move that Salmond and the SNP would agree with.
(*) I use the word squaddies as shorthand for all the armed services.
Why would someone who moves around a lot buy a house?
To get a foot on the housing ladder and so have a home for when they are retired/finish contract - which in the armed forces can be quite early.
How is life in UKIP? Are they set up well organisationallly? Would you say you have been able to find your part to play yet?
I've done nothing except go to the Conference last Saturday. Organisationally, they are light years ahead of where they were two years ago, but still a long way from where they need to be.
There was a paper on UKIP candidates the other day, that you might find interesting if you've not already seen it.
"UKIP candidates and policy positions in the 2013 local elections"
I can't see many people disagreeing with this. And as if on cue, here's a link to Christian Nock's Facebook page. Christian is currently walking around the coast of Britain, sleeping rough every night to raise money and awareness of homelessness amongst ex-servicemen. He's currently in Durness in northern Scotland. Lucky guy. https://www.facebook.com/christian.britain.3.
(Edited for correct amount)
I for one would complain about it , why should I be paying to buy someone else a house. They want to join the forces go ahead does not make them special in my eyes , it is just another career choice and no way I should be subsidising them. More focus group policies , I am almost at the stage I want Labour back in rather than these bleeding heart numpties.
For many in the forces, the role requires frequent moves nationally and internationally. Lenders are rather reticent to lend to people who move around so much, and so this deal could help some of the relatively low-paid servicemen and women get a home. It may also help lower costs in other ways, and reduce the scandal of homeless squaddies (*).
It's a small amount, and seems like a good idea to me, although the devil will be in the details You are naturally free to disagree, although I suspect it's a move that Salmond and the SNP would agree with.
(*) I use the word squaddies as shorthand for all the armed services.
Why would someone who moves around a lot buy a house?
I doubt many that do 'move around a lot' would take advantage of this scheme, even if they were eligible – However, it would greatly help those that are coming to the end of their military service.
Why would someone who moves around a lot buy a house?
Depends on your point-of-view EiT:
You like being on the outside-of-the-tent pi55ing-in and most normal-folk expect that from you. [War-] Shrines in Nippon are respected: So should HMAF-personnel....
"put crudely, the population at large is some way to the left of the political class’ median on economic matters and some way to the right on social ones."
Not sure about this. Politicians have to think in a different way to the population at large. On economics, say, the population resents taxation more than the average MP, but it also values expensive state projects like the NHS. They can think that way because they mostly don't have to reconcile those beliefs into actions, but politicians do, so it's hard to compare their opinions when one group expects to be held to account for them one day.
If people's views on politics were stronger, this divergence would matter, but it doesn't much because most people seem to attach low importance to most of their political opinions. Consider that most people have never thought about or discussed, say, trade protectionism, or sentencing, for an hour at a time. People don't like privatisation, but they don't like government bureaucracies. When confronted with such questions, no wonder we trust in representative democracy, our local representative, and the big political parties, more than in individual and distant leaders (let alone in their ideas themselves).
If any of that was true things would be getting better. Whereas in reality the current media and political class are making everything worse and simply lying about it.
"In London 40 per cent of parents pay for extra lessons – a higher proportion than anywhere else in the UK."
I wonder if there might be a connection between the gang problem and failing schools, the rise of tutoring, house prices in areas with safe catchment areas and the upper middle class members of the new model media and political class clawing their way into safe catchment areas through robbing public money?
I can't see many people disagreeing with this. And as if on cue, here's a link to Christian Nock's Facebook page. Christian is currently walking around the coast of Britain, sleeping rough every night to raise money and awareness of homelessness amongst ex-servicemen. He's currently in Durness in northern Scotland. Lucky guy. https://www.facebook.com/christian.britain.3.
(Edited for correct amount)
I for one would complain about it , why should I be paying to buy someone else a house. They want to join the forces go ahead does not make them special in my eyes , it is just another career choice and no way I should be subsidising them. More focus group policies , I am almost at the stage I want Labour back in rather than these bleeding heart numpties.
For many in the forces, the role requires frequent moves nationally and internationally. Lenders are rather reticent to lend to people who move around so much, and so this deal could help some of the relatively low-paid servicemen and women get a home. It may also help lower costs in other ways, and reduce the scandal of homeless squaddies (*).
It's a small amount, and seems like a good idea to me, although the devil will be in the details You are naturally free to disagree, although I suspect it's a move that Salmond and the SNP would agree with.
(*) I use the word squaddies as shorthand for all the armed services.
Why would someone who moves around a lot buy a house?
To get a foot on the housing ladder and so have a home for when they are retired/finish contract - which in the armed forces can be quite early.
Putting a "foot on the ladder" by going into debt to buy an asset that you won't be using efficiently yet only makes sense if you assume continuous house price inflation. Does anyone expect that from current levels?
I can't see many people disagreeing with this. And as if on cue, here's a link to Christian Nock's Facebook page. Christian is currently walking around the coast of Britain, sleeping rough every night to raise money and awareness of homelessness amongst ex-servicemen. He's currently in Durness in northern Scotland. Lucky guy. https://www.facebook.com/christian.britain.3.
(Edited for correct amount)
I for one would complain about it , why should I be paying to buy someone else a house. They want to join the forces go ahead does not make them special in my eyes , it is just another career choice and no way I should be subsidising them. More focus group policies , I am almost at the stage I want Labour back in rather than these bleeding heart numpties.
For many in the forces, the role requires frequent moves nationally and internationally. Lenders are rather reticent to lend to people who move around so much, and so this deal could help some of the relatively low-paid servicemen and women get a home. It may also help lower costs in other ways, and reduce the scandal of homeless squaddies (*).
It's a small amount, and seems like a good idea to me, although the devil will be in the details You are naturally free to disagree, although I suspect it's a move that Salmond and the SNP would agree with.
(*) I use the word squaddies as shorthand for all the armed services.
Why would someone who moves around a lot buy a house?
To get a foot on the housing ladder and so have a home for when they are retired/finish contract - which in the armed forces can be quite early.
Putting a "foot on the ladder" by going into debt to buy an asset that you won't be using efficiently yet only makes sense if you assume continuous house price inflation. Does anyone expect that from current levels?
Graham Jones - I am not so sure, if you look at the polls voters, particularly younger voters, tend to be more socially liberal on some issues like gay rights and gay marriage than they were 30 years ago. There is still hostility to excess immigration, but there is also a tougher approach to welfare beyond basic support and most people want lower taxes for themselves, if not for the rich, and more choice in public services.
I can be understand nonconsummation because of definitions, but why not adultery? Or is consummation required with another party required in law for adultery to have occurred?
Same definition, and when drafting the law they (quite reasonably) refused to attempt to define what constitutes gay sex. You still have irretrievable breakdown, or unreasonable behaviour, or whatever the wording is. No doubt no-one wanted to stand up in the Commons and state that adultery would no longer be considered a reason for divorce - even though you can easily define it as "unreasonable behaviour".
I can't see many people disagreeing with this. And as if on cue, here's a link to Christian Nock's Facebook page. Christian is currently walking around the coast of Britain, sleeping rough every night to raise money and awareness of homelessness amongst ex-servicemen. He's currently in Durness in northern Scotland. Lucky guy. https://www.facebook.com/christian.britain.3.
(Edited for correct amount)
I for one would complain about it , why should I be paying to buy someone else a house. They want to join the forces go ahead does not make them special in my eyes , it is just another career choice and no way I should be subsidising them. More focus group policies , I am almost at the stage I want Labour back in rather than these bleeding heart numpties.
For many in the forces, the role requires frequent moves nationally and internationally. Lenders are rather reticent to lend to people who move around so much, and so this deal could help some of the relatively low-paid servicemen and women get a home. It may also help lower costs in other ways, and reduce the scandal of homeless squaddies (*).
It's a small amount, and seems like a good idea to me, although the devil will be in the details You are naturally free to disagree, although I suspect it's a move that Salmond and the SNP would agree with.
(*) I use the word squaddies as shorthand for all the armed services.
Why would someone who moves around a lot buy a house?
I doubt many that do 'move around a lot' would take advantage of this scheme, even if they were eligible – However, it would greatly help those that are coming to the end of their military service.
That may be right - I'm responding to JosiasJessop's thought that these people are moving around, so they have a hard time getting a bank loan.
I can't see many people disagreeing with this. And as if on cue, here's a link to Christian Nock's Facebook page. Christian is currently walking around the coast of Britain, sleeping rough every night to raise money and awareness of homelessness amongst ex-servicemen. He's currently in Durness in northern Scotland. Lucky guy. https://www.facebook.com/christian.britain.3.
(Edited for correct amount)
(*) I use the word squaddies as shorthand for all the armed services.
Why would someone who moves around a lot buy a house?
To get a foot on the housing ladder and so have a home for when they are retired/finish contract - which in the armed forces can be quite early.
Putting a "foot on the ladder" by going into debt to buy an asset that you won't be using efficiently yet only makes sense if you assume continuous house price inflation. Does anyone expect that from current levels?
Something still believed in the UK. Outside London, how far that is true remains to be seen. Also, current interest rates are at best artificial. I hate to think what would happen to those who have borrow on "interest only" mortgages. A jump from 2% to 3%, is actually a 50% jump on repayments.
Comments
By the way, it's good to see you keep up your lonely campaign for subsidised piano lessons for the children of the well-paid.
They blew a whopping £3,000 a table to enjoy the annual Health Service Journal Efficiency Awards. Their jolly could have paid a year’s salary for 33 nurses, while Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt is under pressure to improve the performance of NHS managers.
The partygoers left at 2am after a three-course dinner and drinks reception to mark their achievements cutting costs.
They then stayed at top hotels, including the Mayfair Hilton and Radisson Blu Portman, for “discounted” prices of up to £300 each. NHS trusts are believed to have footed the bill from their own budgets, with at least one admitting they had dipped into a charity fund.
North Bristol NHS Trust was slammed five years ago for spending just 50p a head on hospital meals. A spokeswoman said they did not pay for their staff members to drink alcohol or stay overnight.
She added: “North Bristol NHS Trust’s attendance at the event was under the lowest priced package at £2,490 without alcohol and was paid for by charitable funds.”
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/341228/NHS-fat-cats-throw-lavish-party-to-celebrate-saving-money
I wish they'd be honest with themselves about what they were objecting too - it sounds like marriage on principle. That's fine. Just stick to that rather than dress it up with a load of unrelated hogwash. For the price of a marriage certificate - you could be better off within the same tax year if you felt you wanted to make such a binding commitment.
"...Labour won’t miss a trick: they will spend the next week peddling false and inaccurate myths rather than having a sensible debate. So let’s address a few of the myths that are likely are to spring up. This is not about stigmatising unmarried people or single parents: as I’ve already said, you don’t have to be married to have a family life that is rock solid – and we support all families through the tax and benefits system.
All we’re saying is that marriage is a good thing for our country – it’s the ultimate form of commitment under the law – and we want to show our support for it. Next, the charge will come up that we’re trying to bribe people to get married. Frankly this is a pretty depressing – and wrong-headed – view of human nature. People aren’t going to choose to get married for a few extra pounds each week. This policy isn’t about the money but about the message that people who make a lasting commitment should be recognised in some way.
Finally, Labour will say we’re favouring some families over others. But I’m happy to defend our record any day of the week. From tax-free childcare for every working family to an income tax cut for 25million people – from cutting fuel duty to freezing council tax – we’re doing something for all families even in these difficult times....Supporting marriage is part of that vision for Britain, recognising an institution that is all about commitment. I’m proud that we’re finally making this happen – and proud that we’re delivering on the promise I made.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2435723/DAVID-CAMERON-Marriage-good-Britain--thats-Im-backing-tax-break.html#ixzz2gB5imilB
There needs to be a new idiom people can use when offering consolation to the bereaved. "I know how you must be feeling" is just about the least true statement most can offer as they don't and cannot know unless its happened to them.. I found it really irritating...
As expected, even when you give money away, all you get on the media are the moaners. Really, this marriage tax break is just a gesture, yet we have some woman's complaints on R5L being aired continually. Something to do with being judged ... Weird.
It may be wrong but everyone judges everyone else every time they meet. Anti-social behaviour is in the eye of the beholder. If someone pees on a war memorial, we line up to judge them.
I think marriage, both heterosexual and homosexual, is a stabilising influence so is good for that reason. It won't affect me, as my wife's allowance just covers her own pension, but it will help a few people. Why complain for the sake of it?
http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/1858/Family-and-Marriage-Poll.aspx
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/24297857
That would take it to 22 races. Korea seems pretty like to drop off, and Mexico could likewise. New Jersey is still just a maybe, and I think India will cease to be visited in the near future.
Edited extra bit: India isn't on the 2014 calendar but my understanding is it'll return (with a new, early-season slot) in 2015.
Like everyone else, you'd like more money. I can't blame you for that. We all feel that way. But to feel that you deserve to keep state subsidies when you're a higher rate taxpayer and when far more sweeping cuts are taking place on the low paid is absurd. You deserve all the mockery that I have given you on the subject.
Often there are no words suitable, but generally people do not need words, they need a sympathetic ear.
I don't begrudge you your very high income. What does stick in the craw is you lecturing me (and others) on why 70% marginal rates are acceptable for families on a tenth of your income, in almost the same breath as you publicly muse on what to do with your second London flat.
Top of page slightly garbled and incomplete (on my pc anyway - but via 2 different browsers)
I think that's worth £200 to the least well off couples who choose to make a sincere legal commitment - even if it doesn't work out as planned.
It's not a difficult concept, but you refuse to understand it.
The Armed Forces are to benefit from a new £200 million scheme to help them get on the property ladder. goo.gl/9Zpx03
http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?profile=css21&warning=0&uri=http://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2013/09/27/goodbye-to-the-middle-ground/#vanilla-comments
http://www1.politicalbetting.com/wp-content/w3tc/min/0489273a.b84d24.css
Can you drop me an email? arklebar@gmail.com
I used to have yours but seem to have lost it.
I want the assistance of your grade A legal mind on a betting related matter, and for reasons that will become obvious I don't want it discussed in open forum.
Cheers
PtP
"This may be "just a gesture" to you; it's my money to me."
On that basis, the government should never give money to any group unless you're a member. You may be in the majority, I don't know.
Motherhood gets money in the form of CB ( apple pies haven't done yet). Childless couples should therefore complain. Education gets a massive subsidy ... but not everyone is involved, so they should therefore complain. Unless the reason is that the people left out disapprove of the other group? I might well disapprove of money being spent on promoting Satanism, I suppose. However, someone getting money for something which on the whole benefits society isn't one I'd care to make a fuss about.
But each to their own.
I
I cling to the hope that this is all just cynical positioning and he really wouldn't try to govern in this fashion.
But we have seen time and time again with Labour - power and party is everything - the national interest features much lower on their list of priorities.
But whilst you can call Ed all sorts of things I wouldn't try and lump him in with demagogues.
'I note Richard N's claim that Labour has given up on the deficit theme, but this proposal makes the Conservatives the only party to pledge a major deficit-increasing tax measure.'
Has Ed explained how his pledges of an 8-6 school day & 200,000 new houses a year will be paid for?
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/interactive/2013/sep/26/ipcc-climate-change-figures-then-and-now-interactive
Clegg got the free school meals deal. A great policy and politically smart for allowing Cameron to harm himself. What a politician!
twitter.com/ukipwebmaster/status/383742411488260096/photo/1
I would cap the tax rate at 30%, which is what most basic rate taxpayers effectively pay (tax plus NI). To afford that I would drastically cut tax credits and CB.
How is life in UKIP? Are they set up well organisationallly? Would you say you have been able to find your part to play yet?
Average Band D council tax was £1400 in 2010 if we assume a modest 3% increase per annum, which is reasonable to keep around inflation. Remember, CT has to increase every year just to stand still, it is an absolute amount not a percentage like VAt or income tax.
So...
2010 £1400 (base year)
2011 £1442
2012 £1485
2013 £1530
2014 £1575
2015 £1622
There are rumours that the gvt is extending the council tax freeze offer for councils up to the end of the parliament.
So what we see here is a £222 a year reduction in council tax with what it would have been (though its a freeze).
Savings:
11: £42,
12: £85
13: £130
14: £175
15: £222
Total council tax saved due to coalition policy:
Band D £654
My objection is not so much the tax break per se, but that I will be effectively paying tax to give a tax break to couples who are better off than me.
1) Because the way it is going to be implemented is a nightmare.
2) Our socially liberal press and commitariat will hate it
3) Those who are widowed or partner has left them will REALLY hate it
4) Those who benefit won't really care
5) And probably would have been more interested the money going elsewhere
6) Which is a disaster if it is a signature policy which it is - defined against Clegg
7) It reinforces the idea that the Tories are slightly other worldly in their views
8)The British public hate morality in politics
Needless to say, sympathies to Alan and Squareroot.
But in any case this is where the thread header comes in. Each of the two main parties will be doing well to hit 35% in the election. A good result for either requires the support of barely more than one-third of the electorate. It doesn't matter if a majority think your policies are shit, as long as it's popular with the people you need to be in the upper 30s not the lower 30s.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=OvCIBIC69c8
It was a manifesto pledge, so I can see the merit of being a government that does what it says on the tin. Establishing that promises will be honored is a political priority nessecary to help reestablish the competence tag.
The lines will be being drawn up on this already. "We are the party that delivers, the others are a bunch of shysters" . Not nice, but that is politics!
Guido Fawkes @GuidoFawkes
Can anyone name a single OECD country that doesn't either give tax breaks for children or married couples? Labour out on their own here.
Having read David's ever thoughtful piece twice, the one thing I would say is that he underestimates the degree to which people vote against parties rather than for them. This is why the Liberal Democrats and now UKIP prosper because they can be both anti-Conservative and anti-Labour at the same time. The duopoly is as much built on mutual antipathy which creates mutual support. In extremis, Conservative and Labour can be seen to work together (though they do to a much greater extent behind the scenes than is realised by most people) and the electorate will support it but democracy functions from being adversarial as much as it does from being consensual.
Ed Miliband has re-ignited the adversarial nature of politics this week and it will be meat and drink for those who enjoy the knockabout and the insults. From "Butskellism" onwards, periods where the two main parties have been broadly similar have not always worked well and in a plural democratic environment there have to be a number of different and diverging visions.
Given the contradictory nature of the public's desire, it's no surprise that no one size fits all. Parties stress the popular aspects of their programme but they know (as I know) that in order for their programme to be coherent and credible, it needs to include some things which will either be slightly universally unpopular or incredibly unpopular with a significant minority.
Management teams will have networked with their counterparts in other Trusts, to share and copy good practice. Ideas need to spread if the worst inefficiencies in the NHS are to be eliminated.
If average bed stays come down by a fraction of a fraction of a percent then the money will be returned manyfold.
Indeed, I would have thought a referral to the Charities Commission would be in order.
It isn't going to survive scrutiny. It was panned last time it was mooted a few years ago. Same will happen here.
Ok so that didn't render well. Basically people are already seeing through it
Servicemen and women to get interest free loans towards deposits on first homes, up to 50% of salary or £25,000.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24314794
I can't see many people disagreeing with this. And as if on cue, here's a link to Christian Nock's Facebook page. Christian is currently walking around the coast of Britain, sleeping rough every night to raise money and awareness of homelessness amongst ex-servicemen. He's currently in Durness in northern Scotland. Lucky guy.
https://www.facebook.com/christian.britain.3.
(Edited for correct amount)
'1) Because the way it is going to be implemented is a nightmare.
2) Our socially liberal press and commitariat will hate it
3) Those who are widowed or partner has left them will REALLY hate it
4) Those who benefit won't really care
5) And probably would have been more interested the money going elsewhere
6) Which is a disaster if it is a signature policy which it is - defined against Clegg
7) It reinforces the idea that the Tories are slightly other worldly in their views
8)The British public hate morality in politics
9)Polly Toynbe won't like it
10) Nobody wants to pay less tax
Got any substantive points?
I think point 1 is substantive enough as to why it is a bad policy. The rest are why it's a disaster politically. But if you want to think that this is the magic bullet that will stop the Tories going 30 years without a majority in this country then be my guest.
So we will have three statuses:
Civil Partnership 1.0 (for gays only)
Civil Partnership 2.0, known as marriage (for gays)
Marriage 1.0 (for straights)
So not equal at all. The rules are going to be different for gay and straight couples, and we will possibly still have CPs (I don't think the decision has been made yet) despite the fact that a gay marriage will be closer to a CP than a straight one.
I would have equalised the rules by abolishing marriage, and opening CPs to straight couples.
The reason conservatives (small c) have been losing the culture war for the last 50 years is they don't get that. Traditional conservative morality derived from trial and error and is defended on the basis of traditional authority rather than on first principles. Those underlying principles do exist however because otherwise trial and error wouldn't have produced the end result.
So if small c conservatives figure out the underlying principles behind why traditional morality developed the way it did and then argue that alternate moral case from first principles on the basis of greater good and then they'll stop losing the culture war.
Civil partnership should and must be brought in for heterosexual couples.
Not sure about this. Politicians have to think in a different way to the population at large. On economics, say, the population resents taxation more than the average MP, but it also values expensive state projects like the NHS. They can think that way because they mostly don't have to reconcile those beliefs into actions, but politicians do, so it's hard to compare their opinions when one group expects to be held to account for them one day.
If people's views on politics were stronger, this divergence would matter, but it doesn't much because most people seem to attach low importance to most of their political opinions. Consider that most people have never thought about or discussed, say, trade protectionism, or sentencing, for an hour at a time. People don't like privatisation, but they don't like government bureaucracies. When confronted with such questions, no wonder we trust in representative democracy, our local representative, and the big political parties, more than in individual and distant leaders (let alone in their ideas themselves).
And sure, there are the George Galloways of the world, but perhaps people don't regard them so highly as actual politicians, but as scourges, to be applied in small doses to the well-educated politicians who are trusted to do the business of politics in 95% of cases. When working-class people look for an accountant or solicitor, they don't choose on the basis of social similarity, but on quality and professionalism; as politics becomes more professional and managerial and the working-class becomes smaller and more diverse, why are we surprised that they let PPE grads annex their safe seats?
Approximately speaking though it will be:
20% * £32K = £6,400 [no personal allowance]
40% * £118K = £47,200
45% * £350K = £157,500
2% * £460K (NIC) = £9,200
= approx £220K or c. 44%
Plus plenty of additional indirect taxes etc
We are 18 months off an election that is likely to be close. We are going to have a surfeit of poorly thought through populism, even more so from the parties small enough to know that they will not need to deliver.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2435751/GEOFFREY-LEVY-SATURDAY-ESSAY-Red-Eds-pledge-bring-socialism-homage-Marxist-father.html
Do you think you will be at at good standard by the general election and if so how will that affect the election?
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/rachelsylvester/article3870955.ece
It's a small amount, and seems like a good idea to me, although the devil will be in the details You are naturally free to disagree, although I suspect it's a move that Salmond and the SNP would agree with.
(*) I use the word squaddies as shorthand for all the armed services.
I wondered how long it would take for the commentariat to catch up with EdM and as Cruddas has said, the ball is only just beginning to roll following a two year rebuild of heavily defeated Party. As Labour insiders have said, Labour has done it's 'future proof' homework, read well ahead of the curve so a Tory Party taking on Labour today is a Tory Party chasing the opposition.
It's quite something to have most of the commentariat still scratching around in an undergrowth of prickly bushes at night time with broken torches looking for where this is all heading. As Herdson and Manson suggest, they are still way off any political analysis that reflects EdM's grasp of the political reality facing ordinary people and how they are likely to respond.
I think Roberts Fabian article is correct. Exactly 15m people voted consecutively Lib/Lab at the last three elections, that isn't going to change but if it does only towards the 19m of 1997. What underscores EdM is people do not want the free wheeler dealer markets of the last 30 years. They never did with hindsight. They feel not only has it not worked for them but there have been toxic consequences. Longer hours, poorer conditions, more insecurity, an end to lifetime jobs, champagne for the rich and Rackman landlords for the poor. That they are losing and everyone/all politicians have been on the side of the big boys.
I hope the right continue the left right analysis. The public aren't listening.
Just before I retired from the NHS as a prescribing advisor I was called into the Financial Directors office. He told me that he and (I subsequently discovered) his team had been to a function organised by the Trusts auditors. At this function, which was free and apparently quite alcoholic he had been approached by a pharmaceutical company which was one of the sponsors who had suggested tht the use of their products would reduce or prescribing budget. Why, he wanted to know, wasn't I recommending the products? I explained the several reasons and went on to ask whether he thought it was right for the Trust's auditors to run a sponsored function, and invite their clients for free drinks.
We parted on bad terms!
"UKIP candidates and policy positions in the 2013 local elections"
http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/fass/events/epop2013/docs/UKIP candidates and policy positions in 2013 council elections.pdf
http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/fass/events/epop2013/
I doubt many that do 'move around a lot' would take advantage of this scheme, even if they were eligible – However, it would greatly help those that are coming to the end of their military service.
You like being on the outside-of-the-tent pi55ing-in and most normal-folk expect that from you. [War-] Shrines in Nippon are respected: So should HMAF-personnel....
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/boys-quizzed-over-500-rapes-a-year-by-gangs-8335165.html
or
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/one-in-four-parents-pay-tutors-to-coach-their-children-8800916.html
"In London 40 per cent of parents pay for extra lessons – a higher proportion than anywhere else in the UK."
I wonder if there might be a connection between the gang problem and failing schools, the rise of tutoring, house prices in areas with safe catchment areas and the upper middle class members of the new model media and political class clawing their way into safe catchment areas through robbing public money?
Since 2010, I have been reading Ed was a geek who could never get into No.10. He stabbed his brother, he couldn't speak properly etc. etc.
What's happened now ? He is the same person after all.