I'm stunned - the BBC and the Guardian pushing the pro-Labour line heavily today. Who'd have thought it?
It's a left-liberal metropolitan olive-eating socialist media conspiracy, etc etc.
Out to get the 'typical middle earners" on £50K who should be subsidised by those on £11k......
Great policy, by the way, hammering middle income Londoners with 70% marginal rates then threatening them with fines for failing to understand Ozzy's crackpot shambles of a policy. I see it has the PB Tory seal of approval.
Stop whining.
If you can afford to dine out in swanky restaurants like Boisdale, you're better off than 95%+ of the population.
Spare me the sanctimonious hair shirt crap - what part of 70% marginal rates do you think makes sense in any way at all?
Will people stop feeding the troll(s). It's mind numbingly tedious and gives the site a terrible feel, which is very off putting.
It's all well and good people hilariously saying get your refund at the door if you don't like it etc. But this site is inch by inch being strangled by a few obsessives. Back off to lurk again.
Европейский комиссар @MoodySlayerUK RT @BBCWatchdog: Also joining Anne tonight - Leader of the Labour Party @Ed_Miliband to discuss his energy price freeze <<No bias here obvs.
So that's a PPB on Watchdog.</p>
It's a left-liberal metropolitan olive-munching metrosexual Boisdale pact, comrade.
I read the link, and it made the point that all the energy companies had already decided for various reasons not to invest in new capacity now, before Miliband made his speech.
We might bemoan this, but it is an existing reality, after more than three years of the Coalition government.
The government's been trying to make them invest in (baseload / non-green) energy - just look at the protracted nuclear talks. Sadly, the energy companies see the market as being stacked against them wrt green initiatives, and they are worrying signs that the situation will get worse. IANAE, but there are CCGT stations that could be built quickly (within two to three years (*)), but the long-term economics are foggy. Ed's announcement turned the light fog into a thick haar.
One of the fundamental problems is that it removes confidence. The companies have to make long-term decisions; governments concentrate on a maximum of five years, to the next election. The companies want to know that they can go about their business without too much interference wrt the market. They certainly do not want the prospect of a government reneging on previous agreements, as has happened.
The same problem also exists with the idea that tariffs for green energy (mainly wind) can be reduced or abolished, as perk UKIP's wishes. The companies invested on the basis they would get a set amount for their energy. If that changes, so does their willingness to invest. It makes investment decisions that have to be made over 25-30 years reliant on the capriciousness of six governments.
Not good for business. And perversely not good for consumers, either.
I'm stunned - the BBC and the Guardian pushing the pro-Labour line heavily today. Who'd have thought it?
It's a left-liberal metropolitan olive-eating socialist media conspiracy, etc etc.
Out to get the 'typical middle earners" on £50K who should be subsidised by those on £11k......
Great policy, by the way, hammering middle income Londoners with 70% marginal rates then threatening them with fines for failing to understand Ozzy's crackpot shambles of a policy. I see it has the PB Tory seal of approval.
Stop whining.
If you can afford to dine out in swanky restaurants like Boisdale, you're better off than 95%+ of the population.
Spare me the sanctimonious hair shirt crap - what part of 70% marginal rates do you think makes sense in any way at all?
There isn't a 70% marginal rate. Simply a removal of benefits.
I'm stunned - the BBC and the Guardian pushing the pro-Labour line heavily today. Who'd have thought it?
It's a left-liberal metropolitan olive-eating socialist media conspiracy, etc etc.
Out to get the 'typical middle earners" on £50K who should be subsidised by those on £11k......
Great policy, by the way, hammering middle income Londoners with 70% marginal rates then threatening them with fines for failing to understand Ozzy's crackpot shambles of a policy. I see it has the PB Tory seal of approval.
Stop whining.
If you can afford to dine out in swanky restaurants like Boisdale, you're better off than 95%+ of the population.
Spare me the sanctimonious hair shirt crap - what part of 70% marginal rates do you think makes sense in any way at all?
What was that Bob? I can't hear you above the din from all those violins.
O/T Anecdote alert. My touchstone to the zeitgeist, The Office Girls ,were discussing Whatshisface Cumberbatch's new fim The Fifth Estate at work today. Chipping in I made a passing ref to Julian Assange/ Wikileaks etc. Blank stares . Even when I said.." you know, the weird bloke who leaked the secrets and is hiding in the embassy .made a big fuss..." still nothing at all. Complete incomprehension. The entire wikileaks saga whi h caused such an extraordinary kerfuffle had completely passed them by leaving no trace. Clever girls the both of them. Interested me.
The more recent controversial awards may well have contributed to the public’s view of the prize. Obama (2009), Al Gore (2007) and the EU (2012) were judged amongst the least deserving, polling 4%, 4% and 3% respectively.
Glancing down the list the biggest party disagreement seems to be on Gorbachev. Picked by 17% of Conservatives vs 7% of Lib Dems (11% Labour).
UKIP appear outliers (as usual) much less convinced of the merits of Malala (17) than Con/Lab/LibD: (28/25/25) - and twice as keen on Putin (2) than the others......for the current prize.....
'The Conservatives should be attacking Labour's energy policy on believability and effectiveness, not on ideology'
Maybe,but YouGov has already confirmed that 70% of voters don't believe Ed.
'Fewer than a third of voters have confidence Labour could improve the NHS (31%), freeze gas and electricity prices for two years (30%) or build 200,000 new houses a year by 2020 (25%)' .
The entire wikileaks saga whi h caused such an extraordinary kerfuffle had completely passed them by leaving no trace.
It was last year's silly season story - if you'd been on holidays that week or two you could easily have missed it all. Although if you were reading pb at the time you wont have been so lucky.
I'm stunned - the BBC and the Guardian pushing the pro-Labour line heavily today. Who'd have thought it?
It's a left-liberal metropolitan olive-eating socialist media conspiracy, etc etc.
Out to get the 'typical middle earners" on £50K who should be subsidised by those on £11k......
Great policy, by the way, hammering middle income Londoners with 70% marginal rates then threatening them with fines for failing to understand Ozzy's crackpot shambles of a policy. I see it has the PB Tory seal of approval.
Stop whining.
If you can afford to dine out in swanky restaurants like Boisdale, you're better off than 95%+ of the population.
Spare me the sanctimonious hair shirt crap - what part of 70% marginal rates do you think makes sense in any way at all?
There isn't a 70% marginal rate. Simply a removal of benefits.
Well, if you choose to receive CB, and then suffer the deduction through your tax return, the removal of eligibility does constitute part of your tax liability. So if the definition of marginal rate is the percentage of taxable income between £X and £Y that is suffered in direct taxation (pretty uncontroversial rate) then there is a 70%+ marginal rate in certain cases.
Not necessarily a wrong policy in outline, but abysmally implemented. Just about defensible on the basis of independent taxation of couples, but inexcusable not to use the introduction of the marriage tax break as an opportunity to adjust the calculation to a per-family rather than highest-earner basis.
Where I choose to live has f all to do with the fact I am being smashed by prohibitive marginal rates. Perhaps you might share with us what tax rate you pay on your income? I'm all ears, despite the din.
'The Conservatives should be attacking Labour's energy policy on believability and effectiveness, not on ideology'
Maybe,but YouGov has already confirmed that 70% of voters don't believe Ed.
'Fewer than a third of voters have confidence Labour could improve the NHS (31%), freeze gas and electricity prices for two years (30%) or build 200,000 new houses a year by 2020 (25%)' .
Few voters believe what any politician says about anything. And when you remember that in 2010 the Tories promised no rise in VAT, no cuts in frontline services and no top down reorganisation of the NHS you can see why.
Where I choose to live has f all to do with the fact I am being smashed by prohibitive marginal rates. Perhaps you might share with us what tax rate you pay on your income? I'm all ears, despite the din.
It's very odd, Bobajob. For some reason I seem to have forgotten your indignation at Darling's similar marginal tax rates at £100K. You were equally indignant about that, weren't you?
Incidentally, how have you coped with 'being forced into the self-assessment system' (which I was 'forced into' quarter of a century ago)? It took me about 10 minutes this year to fill in and submit the on-line form. What a horror.
Well, if you choose to receive CB, and then suffer the deduction through your tax return, the removal of eligibility does constitute part of your tax liability. So if the definition of marginal rate is the percentage of taxable income between £X and £Y that is suffered in direct taxation (pretty uncontroversial rate) then there is a 70%+ marginal rate in certain cases.
Not necessarily a wrong policy in outline, but abysmally implemented. Just about defensible on the basis of independent taxation of couples, but inexcusable not to use the introduction of the marriage tax break as an opportunity to adjust the calculation to a per-family rather than highest-earner basis.
What an utter arse of a system. Still, I don't believe in the statement of a 70% marginal rate, given that their taxable income is being artificially inflated by a benefit to which they are only entitled a small portion.
Why isn't the credit deducted from the total amount of tax you owe at the end of the year, that way it can be properly calculated based on your taxable income?
That's a good post. I don't think anyone could have argued were the tax imposed on a household basis - but my wife only earns £25k and we are getting smashed. Quite remarkably, a family where mum and dad both earn £49k pay no tax charge on the benefit at all.
As even most Tories agree (including David Cameron!) this is a quite awful piece of policy that abjectly fails the test of good tax-making on every metric.
Those interested in that Congo article I linked to may want to watch the accompanying programme, on BBC2 at 9pm. Sounds quite interesting, if also very sad.
Alex Belardinelli @abelardinelli IMF warns Help2Buy & boosting demand without sufficient rise in supply "may actually reduce affordability of housing" http://bit.ly/1cvX2LV
No shit Sherlock, thats the whole intention.
The IMF continuing to be as dumb as they were back in April.
The suppy of new housing stock only has a very minimal impact on house prices. New builds have a share of around 8.5% of property sales.
The main determinant of house prices is the cost and availability of mortgage finance. The Funds for Lending Scheme and the two Help to Buy schemes are specifically aimed at reducing the cost of mortgage finance and increasing its availability.
So the government are stimulating supply. Perhaps the only missing ingredient is consumer confidence. Then growing confidence is a certainty for as long as George stays as Chancellor: it is the equivalent of having Sir Ben Ainslie as your helmsman in a yacht race.
And while we are on the subject, why aren't married couples allowed to file jointly? Surely that would be better than a token married tax allowance. It would also solve the CB nonsense.
@Bobajob, if you are earning 50k a year, how are you getting 'smashed'? Surely it is only constituted a small portion of your joint income?
Where I choose to live has f all to do with the fact I am being smashed by prohibitive marginal rates. Perhaps you might share with us what tax rate you pay on your income? I'm all ears, despite the din.
It's very odd, Bobajob. For some reason I seem to have forgotten your indignation at Darling's similar marginal tax rates at £100K. You were equally indignant about that, weren't you?
Incidentally, how have you coped with 'being forced into the self-assessment system' (which I was 'forced into' quarter of a century ago)? It took me about 10 minutes this year to fill in and submit the on-line form. What a horror.
Hi Richard - I don't recall supporting the 50p rate. I may have made equivocal comments.
Applying for SA has already taken me more than 10 minutes, and the Taxman still hasn't sent me the bloody code (I hope for a quicker turnaround in future!)
'And when you remember that in 2010 the Tories promised no rise in VAT, no cuts in frontline services and no top down reorganisation of the NHS you can see why.'
You obviously didn't read the manifesto.
'Tax
The manifesto does not rule out increases in Vat, income tax or National Insurance and fails to spell out the full detail of Tory plans for public spending. The document makes few firm pledges on tax – other than the promise not to increase National Insurance for lower paid workers next year.'
Health
'Doctors and nurses to get more decision-making powers. Independent NHS board to allocate resources and provide commissioning guidelines. Power for GPs to commission local health services [England only] '
@Bobajob - So you earn some £70K a year between you and you think you are being 'smashed' because Osborne's no longer giving you even more money?
That is unbelievable, truly unbelievable.
But you and Osborne support a couple on £98,000 getting child benefit.
No, neither Osborne nor I 'support' anything of the sort. However, there aren't many such cases and the extra administrative cost of removing the benefit from them wasn't worth it.
I'd just like to add re today's PMQs that Labour MPs were on target,hitting Cameron where it hurts.They exposed his achilles heel,his and the Tories', woman problem.Kate Green gobsmacked him when she asked him to justify the marriage tax subsidy going to 83% men.When asked by Luciana Berger on Labour's pledge on 25 hours free nursery care,Cameron did what all Old Etonians do and called for nanny. It is good to see a shadow cabinet with a more feminine perspective.These child care policies,alongside the other policies at Labour conference,could prove part of a winning package.All costed and fully funded.
"The IMF’s Fiscal Monitor also suggested the Government could generate around £18.5bn of extra revenues by abolishing the zero value added tax (VAT) rate on items such as food and childrens’ clothing, while protecting the poorest from subsequent price rises by increasing “social transfers”, such as tax credits."
Also found in the book "how to lose elections and alienate people"....
"The IMF’s Fiscal Monitor also suggested the Government could generate around £18.5bn of extra revenues by abolishing the zero value added tax (VAT) rate on items such as food and childrens’ clothing, while protecting the poorest from subsequent price rises by increasing “social transfers”, such as tax credits."
Also found in the book "how to lose elections and alienate people"....
Just imagine the incessant shrieking from Bobajob.
Application close 25 October Shortlisting 16 November Hustings 7 December
Half of the world can try in Brent...Dawn Butler is attempting a come back...Tony McNulty is running ...Hackney Cllr Patrick Vernon started campaigning months ago
BBG goes with a different headline for the IMF on the UK than Tim
'Britain's deficit to shrink fastest in the developed world in 2013 IMF says'
Ruddy incompetent, useless, clueless fops.
The OBR says the deficit will rise this year, got a link?
The forecast deficit reduction is not surprising given year to date public finance figures, but there has, as yet, been no official change in the OBR forecast made in their March EFO. And Chote in his monthly commentary on the ONS Public Finance Bulletins has been very defensive of his original forecasts to the point of stretching credulity.
So if the IMF have stated that the deficit will be the fastest shrinking in the developed world, I would be surprised.
This is probably a quickwitted journalist reading a table in the WEO and reaching his own conclusion.
"Comrades! This is your captain! It is an honour to speak to you today! And I'm honoured to be sailing with you on the maiden voyage of our Motherland's most recent achievement. And once more, we play our dangerous game. A game of chess... against our old adversary... the Conservative Party! For a hundred years, your fathers before you and your older brothers played this game... and played it well. But today, the game is different. WE have the advantage! It reminds me of the heady days of 1945 and Clement Atlee, when the world trembled at the sound of our nationalisations. Now they will tremble again - at the sound of our populism. The order is: engage the Energy Price Freeze!
"Comrades! Our own activists don't know our full potential! They will do everything possible to test us, but they will only test their own embarrassment. We will leave our activists behind! We will pass through the Conservative Party patrols, past their sonar nets, and lay off their largest parliamentary constituency, and listen to their braying and tittering... while we conduct anti-Austerity debates! And when we are finished, the only sound they will hear is our laughter, while we sail to Brighton, where the sun is warm, and so is the... comradeship.
Well, if you choose to receive CB, and then suffer the deduction through your tax return, the removal of eligibility does constitute part of your tax liability. So if the definition of marginal rate is the percentage of taxable income between £X and £Y that is suffered in direct taxation (pretty uncontroversial rate) then there is a 70%+ marginal rate in certain cases.
Not necessarily a wrong policy in outline, but abysmally implemented. Just about defensible on the basis of independent taxation of couples, but inexcusable not to use the introduction of the marriage tax break as an opportunity to adjust the calculation to a per-family rather than highest-earner basis.
What an utter arse of a system. Still, I don't believe in the statement of a 70% marginal rate, given that their taxable income is being artificially inflated by a benefit to which they are only entitled a small portion.
Why isn't the credit deducted from the total amount of tax you owe at the end of the year, that way it can be properly calculated based on your taxable income?
You mean added to the total tax you owe at the end of the year, surely?
The problem is that it kind of looks like a real tax charge, conceptually not just as a matter of formal law. If you have a nice linear predictable income that's one thing, but if you receive commission or bonuses towards the end of the tax year (bear in mind almost every bank pays Feb/March, not just for evil casino bankers, but for local management staff, IFAs and so on) and that takes you from your salary of £49k to a nice £59k, you really do have a massive clawback charge. So as far as you're concerned, you've just been told you're getting a 10 grand bonus, but because you have 3 children, you only see £3,400 of it after tax. There's no way that doesn't feel like a 66% marginal tax rate.
"An overhaul of rail fares means the highest rises will be curbed from next year as the government attempts to take the sting out of ticket prices increasing above inflation. While average fares will still go up by 4.1% in January, the ability of train operators to increase individual fares will be limited to an extra 2% above inflation, rather than the current 5% – removing a power that has meant some commuters have had to pay almost 10% more for their season tickets in recent years." http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/oct/09/rail-transport-transport
More lefty Marxist price fixing.
Trains will spontaneously disappear, shareholders will be begging for loose change on the streets, etc.
"The IMF’s Fiscal Monitor also suggested the Government could generate around £18.5bn of extra revenues by abolishing the zero value added tax (VAT) rate on items such as food and childrens’ clothing, while protecting the poorest from subsequent price rises by increasing “social transfers”, such as tax credits."
Also found in the book "how to lose elections and alienate people"....
Just imagine the incessant shrieking from Bobajob.
Like your support for Rothermere and confusion between non white journalists who seem the same to you are you sure you aren't in above your head trying to justify 70% marginal rates?
@Bobajob - So you earn some £70K a year between you and you think you are being 'smashed' because Osborne's no longer giving you even more money?
That is unbelievable, truly unbelievable.
But you and Osborne support a couple on £98,000 getting child benefit.
No, neither Osborne nor I 'support' anything of the sort. However, there aren't many such cases and the extra administrative cost of removing the benefit from them wasn't worth it.
Due respect, Mr N, but as one of the more intelligent posters on here you must know what abject bollocks that is. The mechanism for removing from higher earners involved, effectively, a whole new tax and a new box on the tax return. That could have been designed based on a certification of both parents' income. The processes that will be used for married couples' transfers (and to some extent are already used for older taxpayers' MCA) are the only additional thing. One change was needed, one change was made. They deliberately made the one they made, and they could have made the other one. Muppets.
Tim, I don;t have a link as its a BBG story from office BBG, but the story says that IMF is predicting the overall UK deficit is now expected to fall to 6.1% of GDP in 2013 from a prediction of 7% in April.
America's deficit is expected to fall to 5.8% of GDP from a previous prediction of 6.4%.
Overall, the IMF said that by the end of the year advanced economies, which are cutting their deficits at the fastest pace since 2011, would have almost halved the shortfalls since 2009 to 4.5% of GDP.
Well, if you choose to receive CB, and then suffer the deduction through your tax return, the removal of eligibility does constitute part of your tax liability. So if the definition of marginal rate is the percentage of taxable income between £X and £Y that is suffered in direct taxation (pretty uncontroversial rate) then there is a 70%+ marginal rate in certain cases.
Not necessarily a wrong policy in outline, but abysmally implemented. Just about defensible on the basis of independent taxation of couples, but inexcusable not to use the introduction of the marriage tax break as an opportunity to adjust the calculation to a per-family rather than highest-earner basis.
What an utter arse of a system. Still, I don't believe in the statement of a 70% marginal rate, given that their taxable income is being artificially inflated by a benefit to which they are only entitled a small portion.
Why isn't the credit deducted from the total amount of tax you owe at the end of the year, that way it can be properly calculated based on your taxable income?
You mean added to the total tax you owe at the end of the year, surely?
The problem is that it kind of looks like a real tax charge, conceptually not just as a matter of formal law. If you have a nice linear predictable income that's one thing, but if you receive commission or bonuses towards the end of the tax year (bear in mind almost every bank pays Feb/March, not just for evil casino bankers, but for local management staff, IFAs and so on) and that takes you from your salary of £49k to a nice £59k, you really do have a massive clawback charge. So as far as you're concerned, you've just been told you're getting a 10 grand bonus, but because you have 3 children, you only see £3,400 of it after tax. There's no way that doesn't feel like a 66% marginal tax rate.
Indeed. It feels like a marginal tax rate of 66% because that's exactly what it is!
Good afternoon colleagues and PB lefties, I gather another of my tips that Sir Ming would hang up his running shoes has been confirmed. Should be an interesting opportunity for the Tory candidate at #GE2015 who according to Baxter is presently predicted to win the seat.
Wonder how many more of the sitting Scottish MPs I have indicated to some PBers are likely to retire will do so.
Good afternoon colleagues and PB lefties, I gather another of my tips that Sir Ming would hang up his running shoes has been confirmed. Should be an interesting opportunity for the Tory candidate at #GE2015 who according to Baxter is presently predicted to win the seat.
Wonder how many more of the sitting Scottish MPs I have indicated to some PBers are likely to retire will do so.
Another 'old face' bites the dust, yesterday it was Abbott, things will certainly look different come the next election _ As for Ming, I don,t think I,ve seen him since he stormed off in a huff, just for being dumped by his party, still it was nice to know he was shuffling about somewhere.
"An overhaul of rail fares means the highest rises will be curbed from next year as the government attempts to take the sting out of ticket prices increasing above inflation. While average fares will still go up by 4.1% in January, the ability of train operators to increase individual fares will be limited to an extra 2% above inflation, rather than the current 5% – removing a power that has meant some commuters have had to pay almost 10% more for their season tickets in recent years." http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/oct/09/rail-transport-transport
More lefty Marxist price fixing.
Trains will spontaneously disappear, shareholders will be begging for loose change on the streets, etc.
IMF WEO 112 Advanced Economies: General Government Structural Balances (percent of potential GDP) Projections ---------------------------------------------------------- 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 ---------------------------------------------------------- Advanced Economies –6.1 –5.4 –4.7 –3.4 –2.7 United States –8.0 –7.3 –6.3 –3.9 –3.2 Euro Area –4.6 –3.7 –2.3 –1.4 –1.1 Germany –2.2 –1.0 0.1 –0.1 0.0 France –5.7 –4.6 –3.5 –2.1 –1.6 Italy –3.6 –3.5 –1.3 –0.2 0.0 Spain –8.1 –8.1 –6.3 –4.9 –4.3 Netherlands –4.4 –3.7 –2.3 0.1 0.1 Belgium –3.7 –4.0 –3.4 –2.7 –2.3 Austria –3.0 –2.1 –1.3 –1.8 –1.8 Greece –12.3 –8.3 –2.6 0.6 1.1 Portugal –9.0 –6.6 –4.0 –3.4 –1.9 Finland –1.7 –1.2 –1.4 –1.1 –0.6 Ireland –8.3 –7.0 –5.9 –5.1 –3.6 Slovak Republi –7.2 –4.8 –4.4 –3.7 –3.5 Slovenia –4.9 –4.0 –1.6 –0.5 –0.7 Luxembourg –0.6 –0.4 –0.8 –0.6 –0.8 Estonia ... ... ... ... ... Cyprus –4.5 –4.0 –2.1 –2.0 –1.6 Malta –4.8 –3.6 –4.3 –3.4 –3.3 Japan –7.9 –8.5 –9.2 –9.2 –6.7 United Kingdom –8.4 –6.0 –5.8 –4.0 –3.9 *** Canada –4.0 –3.2 –2.8 –2.6 –2.2 Other Advanced Economies –1.9 –1.6 –1.4 –1.3 –1.0 Korea 1.7 1.8 2.2 1.7 1.7 Australia –4.9 –4.4 –3.7 –3.1 –2.3 Sweden 0.6 –0.1 –0.7 –1.2 –1.3 Norway –5.4 –4.7 –5.2 –5.7 –5.9 Denmark –1.7 –1.0 –1.1 –0.4 –0.5 New Zealand –4.1 –3.7 –1.1 –0.6 –0.1 Memorandum Major Advanced Economies –6.8 –6.1 –5.4 –3.9 –3.0
So the IMF claim is nearly right. The UK is forecast by the IMF to reduce its structural balance in 2013 by more than all countries in the G7 except Japan.
The price freeze on the power companies is a nice idea but I see it a purely as a gimmick. They can put the prices up afterwards to compensate and they will do so. It can only work if you nationalise the power industry and take the hit into general taxation.
Ed may want to do that, but the unions will then take advantage of their own monopoly position to secure large pay increases. And it's what they are elected to do. Hence the hit on general taxation. Again, Ed may be happy with that.
The risk to the consumer is that if the realists in Labour regain power, they may jib at massive pay rises to people solely because they are in a blackmail position. The result ... the seventies again and power blackouts.
What fun we had ... a three day week and sitting at home in the dark. And Ralph's dreams come to fruition - a revolution.
Quite a cunning plan by Ed. Sunil is right, the man is a genius.
Quite a cunning plan by Ed. Sunil is right, the man is a genius.
"The point is, ladies and gentlemen, that Ed, for lack of a better word, is good. Ed is right, Ed works. Ed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the (R)evolutionary spirit. Ed, in all of his forms; Ed for life, for money, for love, knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind. And Ed, you mark my words, will not only save the Labour Party, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the UK. Thank you very much."
It's funny and it isn't inaccurate. Instead of taking in the gas and dying like good little badgers, they've evaded some of the poison. Cunning little b*stards that they are.
Better than commenting on an OECD report by bleating about how the grade inflation proves it wrong, and far more believable. Bring back the old Badger, Labour, give yourself a fighting chance.
Will people stop feeding the troll(s). It's mind numbingly tedious and gives the site a terrible feel, which is very off putting.
It's all well and good people hilariously saying get your refund at the door if you don't like it etc. But this site is inch by inch being strangled by a few obsessives. Back off to lurk again.
Yes, reading this blog is like reading The Daily Mirror, especially when tim gives us mindless comments every other entry.
So they're shooting the badgers? We missed a trick there, we should have sold licences to hunt them - a sort of privatisation. I bet they'd be none left now, and there's be fewer foxes, dogs and cats too.
Avery, given that have the g7 have incredibly small deficits, or are Japan, that isn't actually that great a claim
Robert
I am not claiming it is!
I am just trying to establish the basis for the original media claim reported by taffys. Looking at the figures it seems very unlikely to me that the IMF would have made the statement originally claimed.
The US figure looks good though! And the UK one might even better it if the IMF had produced a sensible forecast for UK growth in 2013!
This energy price-rigging thing was just a gimmick to give Miliband some airtime over the conference season. I doubt it will appear in the manifesto (except as some mushy 'we will look at ways' cop out). We will all have long forgotten about it by next year.
Now that's a challenge but with Owen Jones for inspiration ....
Anybody with such an inflated wage packet that generates a 70% marginal tax rate is clearly a bloated capitalist with no sense of the real world. It's time we stopped pandering to these posh fops, these fascist running dogs to the capitalist hyena. If they don't pay up, we should cull them and remove the goalposts before they move them.
To be fair. It wasn't a prediction just a statement that that was the way after 2 resignations. Sort of like giving the leader board when only the first 10 pairs have gone out ;-)
Now. On Simon Hughes. He still has time to stand down.
It says much that a policy that could be implemented in two years is more interesting to the government than the policies they are implementing right now.
They are in danger of ceding their advantage. Govts do, oppositions can only talk. When govts talk about oppositions they are losing.
'Actually, I've been astonished that Ed's energy price fix hasn't been a lot more popular.
I really thought this could be the policy that took Labour's lackluster polling position into the mid 40's at last...
Guess it must be because nobody believe's a word that comes out of weird Ed's mouth?'
Spot on,as confirmed by YouGov 70% of voters don't believe Ed.
''Fewer than a third of voters have confidence Labour could improve the NHS (31%), freeze gas and electricity prices for two years (30%) or build 200,000 new houses a year by 2020 (25%)' .
'Actually, I've been astonished that Ed's energy price fix hasn't been a lot more popular.
I really thought this could be the policy that took Labour's lackluster polling position into the mid 40's at last...
Guess it must be because nobody believe's a word that comes out of weird Ed's mouth?'
Spot on,as confirmed by YouGov 70% of voters don't believe Ed.
''Fewer than a third of voters have confidence Labour could improve the NHS (31%), freeze gas and electricity prices for two years (30%) or build 200,000 new houses a year by 2020 (25%)' .
I think Ed cannot work out if he's meant to be Red (and introduce price controls) or Green (and increase energy prices).
Since he's trying to be both, it'll be like mixing Red and Green paint, and he'll be Brown...
"An overhaul of rail fares means the highest rises will be curbed from next year as the government attempts to take the sting out of ticket prices increasing above inflation. While average fares will still go up by 4.1% in January, the ability of train operators to increase individual fares will be limited to an extra 2% above inflation, rather than the current 5% – removing a power that has meant some commuters have had to pay almost 10% more for their season tickets in recent years." http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/oct/09/rail-transport-transport
More lefty Marxist price fixing.
Trains will spontaneously disappear, shareholders will be begging for loose change on the streets, etc.
I would have thought all it will do is decrease the premium / increase the subsidy payable to or by the TOC. There might be some downwards pressure on TOC returns but they won't, I suspect, be required to run the business at a loss.
As it stands the TOCs rarely take full revenue risk and some of the franchises are basically a payment to the TOC to run the service.
'Actually, I've been astonished that Ed's energy price fix hasn't been a lot more popular.
I really thought this could be the policy that took Labour's lackluster polling position into the mid 40's at last...
Guess it must be because nobody believe's a word that comes out of weird Ed's mouth?'
Spot on,as confirmed by YouGov 70% of voters don't believe Ed.
''Fewer than a third of voters have confidence Labour could improve the NHS (31%), freeze gas and electricity prices for two years (30%) or build 200,000 new houses a year by 2020 (25%)' .
I think Ed cannot work out if he's meant to be Red (and introduce price controls) or Green (and increase energy prices).
Since he's trying to be both, it'll be like mixing Red and Green paint, and he'll be Brown...
Once the greens and red meat have been churned and digested by EdM's alimentary tract what comes out is Brown. It's crap.
Tim, could you point me in the direction of the Free School Madrasser? I bet you can't. It must be a lie. A racist lie. A racist, bet-welching lie. A racist, scouse, bet-welching lie. A racist, smearing, scouse, bet-welching lie.
'Here's the laughable Tobe forecasting great success for the head teacher with no qualifications'
No qualifications,just a graduate from London University whose completing her postgraduate PGCE,after yesterday's OECD report on Labour's car crash education and Tristram Twit's response,does anyone take Labour seriously?.
'Before joining Future Annaliese worked on education reform and the curriculum at CIVITAS, the Institute for the Study of Civil Society. Annaliese studied English at Queen Mary, University of London, and has experience of working in primary schools through the Wandsworth SCITT. Annaliese advised the current government on the review of the primary National Curriculum'
Comments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=C_yi9WotkyY
It's all well and good people hilariously saying get your refund at the door if you don't like it etc. But this site is inch by inch being strangled by a few obsessives. Back off to lurk again.
One of the fundamental problems is that it removes confidence. The companies have to make long-term decisions; governments concentrate on a maximum of five years, to the next election. The companies want to know that they can go about their business without too much interference wrt the market. They certainly do not want the prospect of a government reneging on previous agreements, as has happened.
The same problem also exists with the idea that tariffs for green energy (mainly wind) can be reduced or abolished, as perk UKIP's wishes. The companies invested on the basis they would get a set amount for their energy. If that changes, so does their willingness to invest. It makes investment decisions that have to be made over 25-30 years reliant on the capriciousness of six governments.
Not good for business. And perversely not good for consumers, either.
(*) For instance a 2.4 GW plant at Willington has planning permission. As can be seen, the planning application for the vital gas pipeline to it is a lengthy process that is still ongoing. That's another problem that needs tackling.
http://www.rwe.com/web/cms/en/353410/rwe-npower/about-us/our-businesses/new-power-stations/willington-power-station/
'The Conservatives should be attacking Labour's energy policy on believability and effectiveness, not on ideology'
Maybe,but YouGov has already confirmed that 70% of voters don't believe Ed.
'Fewer than a third of voters have confidence Labour could improve the NHS (31%), freeze gas and electricity prices for two years (30%) or build 200,000 new houses a year by 2020 (25%)' .
See "how the tax charge works" here: http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/childbenefitcharge/introduction.htm
Not necessarily a wrong policy in outline, but abysmally implemented. Just about defensible on the basis of independent taxation of couples, but inexcusable not to use the introduction of the marriage tax break as an opportunity to adjust the calculation to a per-family rather than highest-earner basis.
Where I choose to live has f all to do with the fact I am being smashed by prohibitive marginal rates. Perhaps you might share with us what tax rate you pay on your income? I'm all ears, despite the din.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scots-firefighters-vote-no-to-strike-over-pensions-1-3133180
Time those no good Tories had a chat with Mr Salmond to get some tips on how to run a country even with both hands tied behind his back.
Incidentally, how have you coped with 'being forced into the self-assessment system' (which I was 'forced into' quarter of a century ago)? It took me about 10 minutes this year to fill in and submit the on-line form. What a horror.
Truly a 'furore' that made one wish for French-style long summer holidays.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/mother-tongue/10367709/Mumsnet-creaks-under-the-strain-of-penis-beaker.html
Why isn't the credit deducted from the total amount of tax you owe at the end of the year, that way it can be properly calculated based on your taxable income?
Drunk and naked air passenger tasered by police
http://www.scotsman.com/news/odd/drunk-and-naked-air-passenger-tasered-by-police-1-3132930
Exclusive - EC Official confirms no legal barrier to continued Scottish EU membership
http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-news/8152-exclusive-ec-official-confirms-no-legal-barrier-to-continued-scottish-eu-membership
That's a good post. I don't think anyone could have argued were the tax imposed on a household basis - but my wife only earns £25k and we are getting smashed. Quite remarkably, a family where mum and dad both earn £49k pay no tax charge on the benefit at all.
As even most Tories agree (including David Cameron!) this is a quite awful piece of policy that abjectly fails the test of good tax-making on every metric.
Those interested in that Congo article I linked to may want to watch the accompanying programme, on BBC2 at 9pm. Sounds quite interesting, if also very sad.
The suppy of new housing stock only has a very minimal impact on house prices. New builds have a share of around 8.5% of property sales.
The main determinant of house prices is the cost and availability of mortgage finance. The Funds for Lending Scheme and the two Help to Buy schemes are specifically aimed at reducing the cost of mortgage finance and increasing its availability.
So the government are stimulating supply. Perhaps the only missing ingredient is consumer confidence. Then growing confidence is a certainty for as long as George stays as Chancellor: it is the equivalent of having Sir Ben Ainslie as your helmsman in a yacht race.
You really must get that job with the IMF, tim.
@Bobajob, if you are earning 50k a year, how are you getting 'smashed'? Surely it is only constituted a small portion of your joint income?
That is unbelievable, truly unbelievable.
Applying for SA has already taken me more than 10 minutes, and the Taxman still hasn't sent me the bloody code (I hope for a quicker turnaround in future!)
'And when you remember that in 2010 the Tories promised no rise in VAT, no cuts in frontline services and no top down reorganisation of the NHS you can see why.'
You obviously didn't read the manifesto.
'Tax
The manifesto does not rule out increases in Vat, income tax or National Insurance and fails to spell out the full detail of Tory plans for public spending. The document makes few firm pledges on tax – other than the promise not to increase National Insurance for lower paid workers next year.'
Health
'Doctors and nurses to get more decision-making powers. Independent NHS board to allocate resources and provide commissioning guidelines. Power for GPs to commission local health services [England only] '
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2424473/Ryanair-Emergency-landing-drunk-Scots-sparked-chaos.html
http://travel.aol.co.uk/2013/08/05/ryanair-flight-passengers-yobs-riot-prestwick-to-ibiza/#!slide=aol_1245520
It is good to see a shadow cabinet with a more feminine perspective.These child care policies,alongside the other policies at Labour conference,could prove part of a winning package.All costed and fully funded.
'Britain's deficit to shrink fastest in the developed world in 2013 IMF says'
Ruddy incompetent, useless, clueless fops.
Also found in the book "how to lose elections and alienate people"....
Rochester and Strood shortlist: Naushabah Khan and Cllr Isaac Igwe
Dewsbury shortlist: Paula Sherriff (Pontefract North Cllr), Cathy Scott (Dewsbury East Cllr), Nasrin Ali (Manchester Cllr). Selection on November 2.
Tracey Ullman's daughter is seeking selection in Ealing Central & Acton.
http://mabelmckeown.co.uk/
Brent Central timetable
Application close 25 October
Shortlisting 16 November
Hustings 7 December
Half of the world can try in Brent...Dawn Butler is attempting a come back...Tony McNulty is running ...Hackney Cllr Patrick Vernon started campaigning months ago
So if the IMF have stated that the deficit will be the fastest shrinking in the developed world, I would be surprised.
This is probably a quickwitted journalist reading a table in the WEO and reaching his own conclusion.
Very interesting.
"Comrades! This is your captain! It is an honour to speak to you today! And I'm honoured to be sailing with you on the maiden voyage of our Motherland's most recent achievement. And once more, we play our dangerous game. A game of chess... against our old adversary... the Conservative Party! For a hundred years, your fathers before you and your older brothers played this game... and played it well. But today, the game is different. WE have the advantage! It reminds me of the heady days of 1945 and Clement Atlee, when the world trembled at the sound of our nationalisations. Now they will tremble again - at the sound of our populism. The order is: engage the Energy Price Freeze!
"Comrades! Our own activists don't know our full potential! They will do everything possible to test us, but they will only test their own embarrassment. We will leave our activists behind! We will pass through the Conservative Party patrols, past their sonar nets, and lay off their largest parliamentary constituency, and listen to their braying and tittering... while we conduct anti-Austerity debates! And when we are finished, the only sound they will hear is our laughter, while we sail to Brighton, where the sun is warm, and so is the... comradeship.
"A great day, comrades! We sail into history!"
Not sure if link will work
The problem is that it kind of looks like a real tax charge, conceptually not just as a matter of formal law. If you have a nice linear predictable income that's one thing, but if you receive commission or bonuses towards the end of the tax year (bear in mind almost every bank pays Feb/March, not just for evil casino bankers, but for local management staff, IFAs and so on) and that takes you from your salary of £49k to a nice £59k, you really do have a massive clawback charge. So as far as you're concerned, you've just been told you're getting a 10 grand bonus, but because you have 3 children, you only see £3,400 of it after tax. There's no way that doesn't feel like a 66% marginal tax rate.
@Watcher - happy to debate you, although I note you still haven't told us what marginal rate of income tax you pay.
@Richard - for the record, we earn ~£83k. Realise that's grist to your mill but best to be fair!
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/oct/09/rail-transport-transport
More lefty Marxist price fixing.
Trains will spontaneously disappear, shareholders will be begging for loose change on the streets, etc.
I don't read, or buy The Daily mail. Do you?
I don;t have a link as its a BBG story from office BBG, but the story says that IMF is predicting the overall UK deficit is now expected to fall to 6.1% of GDP in 2013 from a prediction of 7% in April.
America's deficit is expected to fall to 5.8% of GDP from a previous prediction of 6.4%.
Overall, the IMF said that by the end of the year advanced economies, which are cutting their deficits at the fastest pace since 2011, would have almost halved the shortfalls since 2009 to 4.5% of GDP.
GO is doing your kids a favour.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/10/neil-kinnock-interview-labour-must-absolutely-not-support-eu-referendum
Oooh an anomoly that proves everything....
Źzzzzzzzz
The price freeze on the power companies is a nice idea but I see it a purely as a gimmick. They can put the prices up afterwards to compensate and they will do so. It can only work if you nationalise the power industry and take the hit into general taxation.
Ed may want to do that, but the unions will then take advantage of their own monopoly position to secure large pay increases. And it's what they are elected to do. Hence the hit on general taxation. Again, Ed may be happy with that.
The risk to the consumer is that if the realists in Labour regain power, they may jib at massive pay rises to people solely because they are in a blackmail position. The result ... the seventies again and power blackouts.
What fun we had ... a three day week and sitting at home in the dark. And Ralph's dreams come to fruition - a revolution.
Quite a cunning plan by Ed. Sunil is right, the man is a genius.
As well as the prediction that Simon Hughes wouldnt stand again?
http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/7126
Incompetent fops indeed.
No wonder the PB tory twits are shrieking so hysterically about Red Ed.
I quite like "the badgers moved the goalposts."
It's funny and it isn't inaccurate. Instead of taking in the gas and dying like good little badgers, they've evaded some of the poison. Cunning little b*stards that they are.
Better than commenting on an OECD report by bleating about how the grade inflation proves it wrong, and far more believable. Bring back the old Badger, Labour, give yourself a fighting chance.
http://www.theguardian.com/education/2013/oct/09/free-school-head-no-teaching-qualifications-leaves-job
http://www.leftfutures.org/2013/10/ed-miliband-shifts-leftwards-at-conference-but-rightwards-in-the-plp/
I am not sure who was classified as who...
When?
Yes, reading this blog is like reading The Daily Mirror, especially when tim gives us mindless comments every other entry.
So they're shooting the badgers? We missed a trick there, we should have sold licences to hunt them - a sort of privatisation. I bet they'd be none left now, and there's be fewer foxes, dogs and cats too.
A misreading of the IMF 'Deficits' Table which showed end year GDP:Deficit ratios rather than changes over the year.
Here is the table amended to show the annual change more clearly: New conclusion: UK beats all G7 countries except the US.
I am not claiming it is!
I am just trying to establish the basis for the original media claim reported by taffys. Looking at the figures it seems very unlikely to me that the IMF would have made the statement originally claimed.
The US figure looks good though! And the UK one might even better it if the IMF had produced a sensible forecast for UK growth in 2013!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-24440529
Though clearly the DoEd are on the case and threatening to shut it down unless it mends its ways, so not so bad for the Govt.
"Would you care to put the case instead?"
Now that's a challenge but with Owen Jones for inspiration ....
Anybody with such an inflated wage packet that generates a 70% marginal tax rate is clearly a bloated capitalist with no sense of the real world. It's time we stopped pandering to these posh fops, these fascist running dogs to the capitalist hyena. If they don't pay up, we should cull them and remove the goalposts before they move them.
Easy-peasy.
To be fair. It wasn't a prediction just a statement that that was the way after 2 resignations. Sort of like giving the leader board when only the first 10 pairs have gone out ;-)
Now. On Simon Hughes. He still has time to stand down.
"Education, Educashon, Edukayshun"
I really thought this could be the policy that took Labour's lackluster polling position into the mid 40's at last...
Guess it must be because nobody believe's a word that comes out of weird Ed's mouth?
They are in danger of ceding their advantage. Govts do, oppositions can only talk. When govts talk about oppositions they are losing.
'Actually, I've been astonished that Ed's energy price fix hasn't been a lot more popular.
I really thought this could be the policy that took Labour's lackluster polling position into the mid 40's at last...
Guess it must be because nobody believe's a word that comes out of weird Ed's mouth?'
Spot on,as confirmed by YouGov 70% of voters don't believe Ed.
''Fewer than a third of voters have confidence Labour could improve the NHS (31%), freeze gas and electricity prices for two years (30%) or build 200,000 new houses a year by 2020 (25%)' .
Since he's trying to be both, it'll be like mixing Red and Green paint, and he'll be Brown...
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/fossil-fuel-emissions-must-be-eliminated-oecd-chief-says-1.1931443?cmp=rss
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/3024041.stm
Everyone just saw it as a desperate attempt drum up some popularity from a politician with nothing to say.
As it stands the TOCs rarely take full revenue risk and some of the franchises are basically a payment to the TOC to run the service.
It's not really a meaningfull comparison
A tim lie.
'Here's the laughable Tobe forecasting great success for the head teacher with no qualifications'
No qualifications,just a graduate from London University whose completing her postgraduate PGCE,after yesterday's OECD report on Labour's car crash education and Tristram Twit's response,does anyone take Labour seriously?.
'Before joining Future Annaliese worked on education reform and the curriculum at CIVITAS, the Institute for the Study of Civil Society. Annaliese studied English at Queen Mary, University of London, and has experience of working in primary schools through the Wandsworth SCITT. Annaliese advised the current government on the review of the primary National Curriculum'