Bad day for labour and terrible response by Corbyn
The LOTO response makes no difference. The fine detail will provide the headlines.
On the face of it it's a pretty unexciting budget from an unexciting party in difficult times.
Unexciting is what you want in a budget. If it isn’t it usually falls apart when the detail is examined.
BTW is Corbyn still speaking? The Guardian said they would summarise his speech once he’d finished, but that comment was about 40 minutes ago.
Sorry, but Corbyn tore the Tories apart, the expressions on the cabinet members faces told all, and the general evacuation from the government backbenchers showed it.
So what were his main points?
His main point was Austerity Bad, Tories Evil, Me Good.
You forgot to put that in ALL CAPS - as he didn't stop shouting once.
Bad day for labour and terrible response by Corbyn
The LOTO response makes no difference. The fine detail will provide the headlines.
On the face of it it's a pretty unexciting budget from an unexciting party in difficult times.
Unexciting is what you want in a budget. If it isn’t it usually falls apart when the detail is examined.
BTW is Corbyn still speaking? The Guardian said they would summarise his speech once he’d finished, but that comment was about 40 minutes ago.
Sorry, but Corbyn tore the Tories apart, the expressions on the cabinet members faces told all, and the general evacuation from the government backbenchers showed it.
So what were his main points?
His main point was Austerity Bad, Tories Evil, Me Good.
Well, I always tell my students to use bullet points...
I assume it was quick then?
Corbyn? Quick? It lasted nearly forty minutes I think.
His toilet related puns. Awful. Really not sure where the adult stuff comes from.
All very well for you men. You can go and pee anywhere - and a few weeks ago late at night I saw a man openly relieving himself in front of a Waitrose, without even making any attempt to be discreet, for God’s sake! - but we ladies can’t and don’t want to have to go into a coffee shop and buy their bloody awful cappuccinos just to use the loo.
Do what the rest of us do - go into a pub and use their loo without buying anything
I always feel that I'm taking the piss when I do that.
Bad day for labour and terrible response by Corbyn
The LOTO response makes no difference. The fine detail will provide the headlines.
On the face of it it's a pretty unexciting budget from an unexciting party in difficult times.
Unexciting is what you want in a budget. If it isn’t it usually falls apart when the detail is examined.
BTW is Corbyn still speaking? The Guardian said they would summarise his speech once he’d finished, but that comment was about 40 minutes ago.
Sorry, but Corbyn tore the Tories apart, the expressions on the cabinet members faces told all, and the general evacuation from the government backbenchers showed it.
So what were his main points?
His main point was Austerity Bad, Tories Evil, Me Good.
You forgot to put that in ALL CAPS - as he didn't stop shouting once.
It was painful. It was like Iain Duncan Smith with less intelligence and less concern for poor people.
His toilet related puns. Awful. Really not sure where the adult stuff comes from.
All very well for you men. You can go and pee anywhere - and a few weeks ago late at night I saw a man openly relieving himself in front of a Waitrose, without even making any attempt to be discreet, for God’s sake! - but we ladies can’t and don’t want to have to go into a coffee shop and buy their bloody awful cappuccinos just to use the loo.
Do what the rest of us do - go into a pub and use their loo without buying anything
I always feel that I'm taking the piss when I do that.
A £30bn increase in spending is not insignificant and really should boost short term growth. It would be disappointing if that did not generate more growth than currently forecast.
His toilet related puns. Awful. Really not sure where the adult stuff comes from.
All very well for you men. You can go and pee anywhere - and a few weeks ago late at night I saw a man openly relieving himself in front of a Waitrose, without even making any attempt to be discreet, for God’s sake! - but we ladies can’t and don’t want to have to go into a coffee shop and buy their bloody awful cappuccinos just to use the loo.
Do what the rest of us do - go into a pub and use their loo without buying anything
I always feel that I'm taking the piss when I do that.
Hammond says he will extend the rules on IR35 to the private sector, but delay the changes until April 2020, and only apply them to large and medium-sized businesses.
Ouch - that's a biggie.
Makes an awful lot of sense. Easier to go after the businesses for non compliance than the individuals.
More to the point, it's easier to pressure the businesses to incorrectly make an "inside IR35" call. After all, HMRC has lost the vast majority of their IR35 cases in the past decade when they have taken the ones they judge to be the most egregious and blatant offenders to tribunal. Implying that their judgement on how many freelancers are actually breaking the rules is hugely incorrect.
The Off-Payroll rules they rolled out in the public sector not only use a tool that's incorrectly set up to make "inside IR35" judgements (as shown from a number of cases) but put the default pressure on bodies that don't like assuming risk to make a blanket "inside IR35" call.
There was a particularly amusing case recently where a contractor who'd been placed inside IR35 by the tool took the body to court for withholding a set of NI payments incorrectly, "lost" the case and the judge said he was definitely not an employee. So if he'd won, he'd have been owed several thousand pounds. Because he lost, he was owed... several thousand pounds for another reason. A true "win-win" case.
A difficult job but Corbyn was poor. All over the place. He'd have done much better to choose a single theme. Incomprehensible actually and listening on radio it felt eerily quiet.
Oh dear, given Rogerdamus record, I am worried now that Corbyn's response might have been brilliant...Labour lead of 10points in next polls....
This woman is complaining that the Chancellor did not do enough to stimulate construction whose number one problem, according to her, is....skill shortages. Surely some mistake?
This woman is complaining that the Chancellor did not do enough to stimulate construction whose number one problem, according to her, is....skill shortages. Surely some mistake?
This woman is complaining that the Chancellor did not do enough to stimulate construction whose number one problem, according to her, is....skill shortages. Surely some mistake?
no shes an idiot
Well that’s the other possibility. I wouldn’t be employing her as a consultant.
A difficult job but Corbyn was poor. All over the place. He'd have done much better to choose a single theme. Incomprehensible actually and listening on radio it felt eerily quiet.
Oh dear, given Rogerdamus record, I am worried now that Corbyn's response might have been brilliant...Labour lead of 10points in next polls....
How dare Corbyn go on about womens refuges. He wants to allow self-id thus allowing a violent man to self-id and enter such a refuge and any other safe space for women.
As the Karen White case shows, that is more than a theoretical risk.
Of course. As would be obvious to anyone with a brain not blinded by ideology.
I am going to phrase this as carefully as possible.
Experience has taught us that men (and sometimes women) with a sexual interest in children will do whatever is necessary to put themselves in a position where they have access to children and where their position is such that they will not be (or are very unlikely to be) questioned.
It is therefore likely that men wishing to harm women will do whatever is necessary to put themselves in a position where they can do so. Self-id and, therefore (if the proposals go through without any sort of controls / medical diagnosis) the ability to access spaces where there are women, often in a vulnerable position (refuges, changing rooms etc) provides an opportunity for such men and puts women at risk. An unnecessary risk. The right of women to be safe is important. The right to do without a bit of bureaucracy is not an important right. Indeed, what is described as a bit of bureaucracy are safeguards to ensure that changing gender is genuine, a properly thought out decision, medically recognised and evidenced by changes in behaviour.
I am not, please note, comparing transgender people to paedophiles. I am comparing rapists to paedophiles in that both will take advantage of opportunities to do harm to their intended victims. I do not think that we should create more such opportunities. There is a process for changing gender. Make improvements to that process to help genuine transgender people, by all means. But do not do so in a way which diminishes womens’ rights.
So, back to the important business. Where's the weakness in this budget? My instinctive answer is that trouble will come from one of IR35 or UC, both of which strike me as to put it mildly hostages to fortune.
But the tax threshold and business rates will likely be well received. Didn't see either of those coming.
UC, very probably. It's not at all clear how much the extra help for transitional relief, together with the extra annual increase, will mitigate the pain
Early estimates seem to be it will be worth about £750 against a possible loss of £2400 for those switching.
How dare Corbyn go on about womens refuges. He wants to allow self-id thus allowing a violent man to self-id and enter such a refuge and any other safe space for women.
As the Karen White case shows, that is more than a theoretical risk.
Of course. As would be obvious to anyone with a brain not blinded by ideology.
I am going to phrase this as carefully as possible.
Experience has taught us that men (and sometimes women) with a sexual interest in children will do whatever is necessary to put themselves in a position where they have access to children and where their position is such that they will not be (or are very unlikely to be) questioned.
It is therefore likely that men wishing to harm women will do whatever is necessary to put themselves in a position where they can do so. Self-id and, therefore (if the proposals go through without any sort of controls / medical diagnosis) the ability to access spaces where there are women, often in a vulnerable position (refuges, changing rooms etc) provides an opportunity for such men and puts women at risk. An unnecessary risk. The right of women to be safe is important. The right to do without a bit of bureaucracy is not an important right. Indeed, what is described as a bit of bureaucracy are safeguards to ensure that changing gender is genuine, a properly thought out decision, medically recognised and evidenced by changes in behaviour.
I am not, please note, comparing transgender people to paedophiles. I am comparing rapists to paedophiles in that both will takenadvantages of opportunities to do harm to their intended victims. I do not think that we should create more such opportunities. There is a process for changing gender. Make improvements to that process to help genuine transgender people, by all means. But do not do so in a way which diminishes womens’ rights.
You are not comparing transgender people to paedophiles: you are comparing them to teachers. We can’t just turn up at a school and self-identify as teachers; we have to go though a set of checks first.
How dare Corbyn go on about womens refuges. He wants to allow self-id thus allowing a violent man to self-id and enter such a refuge and any other safe space for women.
As the Karen White case shows, that is more than a theoretical risk.
Of course. As would be obvious to anyone with a brain not blinded by ideology.
I am going to phrase this as carefully as possible.
Experience has taught us that men (and sometimes women) with a sexual interest in children will do whatever is necessary to put themselves in a position where they have access to children and where their position is such that they will not be (or are very unlikely to be) questioned.
It is therefore likely that men wishing to harm women will do whatever is necessary to put themselves in a position where they can do so. Self-id and, therefore (if the proposals go through without any sort of controls / medical diagnosis) the ability to access spaces where there are women, often in a vulnerable position (refuges, changing rooms etc) provides an opportunity for such men and puts women at risk. An unnecessary risk. The right of women to be safe is important. The right to do without a bit of bureaucracy is not an important right. Indeed, what is described as a bit of bureaucracy are safeguards to ensure that changing gender is genuine, a properly thought out decision, medically recognised and evidenced by changes in behaviour.
I am not, please note, comparing transgender people to paedophiles. I am comparing rapists to paedophiles in that both will take advantage of opportunities to do harm to their intended victims. I do not think that we should create more such opportunities. There is a process for changing gender. Make improvements to that process to help genuine transgender people, by all means. But do not do so in a way which diminishes womens’ rights.
WHere you do not have such checks you get disasters like this:
Corbyn is responding for Labour I think? Is that unusual? I don't recall
Standard form -- Leader of the Opposition responds to the budget statement. The Shadow Chancellor will lead for Labour on the budget debate over the next few days.
The LoTO response is often a bit lame and restricted to generalities because he has had no advance sight of the budget measures, many of which are hidden in the red book which is released only after the budget speech.
In fairness some LotO are very good at responding quickly. Blair, Hague and Howard were all very quick to seize on weaknesses in a budget. Cameron and Miliband rather less so.
Corbyn has now completely lost his way. He doesn't have any thread to this speech at all.
Don’t tell Brenda from Bristol, but there’s some chatter in the City tonight that Philip Hammond may have been paving the way for an early general election.
You read it first here, and before Hammond stood up.
How dare Corbyn go on about womens refuges. He wants to allow self-id thus allowing a violent man to self-id and enter such a refuge and any other safe space for women.
As the Karen White case shows, that is more than a theoretical risk.
Of course. As would be obvious to anyone with a brain not blinded by ideology.
I am going to phrase this as carefully as possible.
I am not, please note, comparing transgender people to paedophiles. I am comparing rapists to paedophiles in that both will take advantage of opportunities to do harm to their intended victims. I do not think that we should create more such opportunities. There is a process for changing gender. Make improvements to that process to help genuine transgender people, by all means. But do not do so in a way which diminishes womens’ rights.
WHere you do not have such checks you get disasters like this:
I discussed this case with my all-female Ethics A-level class, and they all felt this was a sign something has gone very wrong with equality law.
Equality Law was massively screwed by the act that was driven through by Harman. It ignored basic common sense in order to impose an agenda based on ideology rather than fairness.
Sadly the subsequent governments did nothing to undo the bad work of that and further compounded it.
As of yet, we don't have any real understanding on the long term effects of the apparent growth in gender-related issues. And until we do, we should tread very lightly lest we do harm. We have no idea what the unintended consequences of these changes will be.
Everyone should be as free as possible to live their lives as they want. But basic protections for society as a whole should be maintained.
We are dealing with a modern view of gender that is a recent creation. Add to that a conflation of gender with sexuality and we are creating tensions that are doing harm on both sides of the divide.
The proposed changes to the GRA should be paused until sufficient medical and sociological evidence is produced that backs up what is envisioned. As of yet, I have seen nothing to justify such a radical reshaping of our society.
At the end of the day, we still have to medically treat individuals on the basis of their biological sex. No amount of self-id will change that basic truth. That does not mean that unnecessary barriers to should be created to stop people living as they choose. But it does mean that the law should not be used to further an agenda rather than creating the best possible environment for self-expression as well as societal protection.
Don’t tell Brenda from Bristol, but there’s some chatter in the City tonight that Philip Hammond may have been paving the way for an early general election.
You read it first here, and before Hammond stood up.
There's another £15-20bn headroom to spend next year as well by my back of the fag packet calculations. Pre election bonanza.
Don’t tell Brenda from Bristol, but there’s some chatter in the City tonight that Philip Hammond may have been paving the way for an early general election.
You read it first here, and before Hammond stood up.
Do you think a snap one after 29th March might be called, or possibly before if the govt can't get Brexiteers through the house ?
Don’t tell Brenda from Bristol, but there’s some chatter in the City tonight that Philip Hammond may have been paving the way for an early general election.
You read it first here, and before Hammond stood up.
Do you think a snap one after 29th March might be called, or possibly before if the govt can't get Brexiteers through the house ?
I think if there is a no deal the government will hold on, if there's a deal they will push it through sign it with the EU and then go to the public on the back of a "deal dividend" from the £15-20bn of headroom already on the books.
But the fact that the government could have balanced the budget for the first time and eliminate the deficit - but instead chose to spend the money on a series of giveaways - is actually a sign of political weakness and an indication of how close to panic they are, as Brexit looms.
Don’t tell Brenda from Bristol, but there’s some chatter in the City tonight that Philip Hammond may have been paving the way for an early general election.
You read it first here, and before Hammond stood up.
Do you think a snap one after 29th March might be called, or possibly before if the govt can't get Brexiteers through the house ?
My guess is that they are thinking about what might happen if they can't get the Withdrawal agreement through the House. There would by no time for a referendum, but a GE can be called quite quickly, and Labour can hardly object, having been asking for one for months. So a GE, high-risk though it is, might be the only possibility, probably with a request for a short extension to Art 50.
Of course it might leave thing back at square one if there's again a hung parliament, but I suspect no-one has any better ideas.
Don’t tell Brenda from Bristol, but there’s some chatter in the City tonight that Philip Hammond may have been paving the way for an early general election.
You read it first here, and before Hammond stood up.
He’s giving himself options.
It reminds Tory MPs why they’re Tories whilst also gives a nice retail offer to the electorate should a GE be necessary.
Don’t tell Brenda from Bristol, but there’s some chatter in the City tonight that Philip Hammond may have been paving the way for an early general election.
You read it first here, and before Hammond stood up.
Do you think a snap one after 29th March might be called, or possibly before if the govt can't get Brexiteers through the house ?
My guess is that they are thinking about what might happen if they can't get the Withdrawal agreement through the House. There would by no time for a referendum, but a GE can be called quite quickly, and Labour can hardly object, having been asking for one for months. So a GE, high-risk though it is, might be the only possibility, probably with a request for a short extension to Art 50.
Of course it might leave thing back at square 1 if there's again a hung parliament, but I suspect no-one has any better ideas.
I don't think we could go to the public on the back of failure to secure a deal. It would result in a 1997 style wipe out, whatever some of our members and MPs seem to believe.
Don’t tell Brenda from Bristol, but there’s some chatter in the City tonight that Philip Hammond may have been paving the way for an early general election.
You read it first here, and before Hammond stood up.
Do you think a snap one after 29th March might be called, or possibly before if the govt can't get Brexiteers through the house ?
My guess is that they are thinking about what might happen if they can't get the Withdrawal agreement through the House. There would by no time for a referendum, but a GE can be called quite quickly, and Labour can hardly object, having been asking for one for months. So a GE, high-risk though it is, might be the only possibility, probably with a request for a short extension to Art 50.
Of course it might leave thing back at square 1 if there's again a hung parliament, but I suspect no-one has any better ideas.
I don't think we could go to the public on the back of failure to secure a deal. It would result in a 1997 style wipe out, whatever some of our members and MPs seem to believe.
No, what I'm suggesting is that we get a deal with the EU, but Labour and a few ultras block it. In that circumstance, going to the electorate for a mandate to ratify the deal could make sense, or at least more sense than any other course of action.
Don’t tell Brenda from Bristol, but there’s some chatter in the City tonight that Philip Hammond may have been paving the way for an early general election.
You read it first here, and before Hammond stood up.
Do you think a snap one after 29th March might be called, or possibly before if the govt can't get Brexiteers through the house ?
My guess is that they are thinking about what might happen if they can't get the Withdrawal agreement through the House. There would by no time for a referendum, but a GE can be called quite quickly, and Labour can hardly object, having been asking for one for months. So a GE, high-risk though it is, might be the only possibility, probably with a request for a short extension to Art 50.
Of course it might leave thing back at square 1 if there's again a hung parliament, but I suspect no-one has any better ideas.
I don't think we could go to the public on the back of failure to secure a deal. It would result in a 1997 style wipe out, whatever some of our members and MPs seem to believe.
I doubt it, it would likely see Corbyn PM of a minority government but given about 45% of voters back No Deal over Remain most of whom now back the Tories or would move from UKIP to back a No Deal Tory Party that is hardly a 30% 1997 wipeout for the Tories. A Corbyn premiership would swiftly see the UK return to the negotiating table in Brussels anyway
Don’t tell Brenda from Bristol, but there’s some chatter in the City tonight that Philip Hammond may have been paving the way for an early general election.
You read it first here, and before Hammond stood up.
Do you think a snap one after 29th March might be called, or possibly before if the govt can't get Brexiteers through the house ?
My guess is that they are thinking about what might happen if they can't get the Withdrawal agreement through the House. There would by no time for a referendum, but a GE can be called quite quickly, and Labour can hardly object, having been asking for one for months. So a GE, high-risk though it is, might be the only possibility, probably with a request for a short extension to Art 50.
Of course it might leave thing back at square 1 if there's again a hung parliament, but I suspect no-one has any better ideas.
I don't think we could go to the public on the back of failure to secure a deal. It would result in a 1997 style wipe out, whatever some of our members and MPs seem to believe.
No, what I'm suggesting is that we get a deal with the EU, but Labour and a few ultras block it. In that circumstance, going to the electorate for a mandate to ratify the deal could make sense, or at least more sense than any other course of action.
I think if a deal is put to Parliament that the EU had ratified it would sail through with 300 Con plus 100 Lab at least. If Labour play silly buggers on it they will get punished by the public and I think they know that. I guess this budget is a message to Labour as much as our lot that the government are ready to face them down with a GE.
Don’t tell Brenda from Bristol, but there’s some chatter in the City tonight that Philip Hammond may have been paving the way for an early general election.
You read it first here, and before Hammond stood up.
Do you think a snap one after 29th March might be called, or possibly before if the govt can't get Brexiteers through the house ?
My guess is that they are thinking about what might happen if they can't get the Withdrawal agreement through the House. There would by no time for a referendum, but a GE can be called quite quickly, and Labour can hardly object, having been asking for one for months. So a GE, high-risk though it is, might be the only possibility, probably with a request for a short extension to Art 50.
Of course it might leave thing back at square 1 if there's again a hung parliament, but I suspect no-one has any better ideas.
I don't think we could go to the public on the back of failure to secure a deal. It would result in a 1997 style wipe out, whatever some of our members and MPs seem to believe.
No, what I'm suggesting is that we get a deal with the EU, but Labour and a few ultras block it. In that circumstance, going to the electorate for a mandate to ratify the deal could make sense, or at least more sense than any other course of action.
That would put the ERG in an interesting position.
Don’t tell Brenda from Bristol, but there’s some chatter in the City tonight that Philip Hammond may have been paving the way for an early general election.
You read it first here, and before Hammond stood up.
He’s giving himself options.
It reminds Tory MPs why they’re Tories whilst also gives a nice retail offer to the electorate should a GE be necessary.
Don’t tell Brenda from Bristol, but there’s some chatter in the City tonight that Philip Hammond may have been paving the way for an early general election.
You read it first here, and before Hammond stood up.
Do you think a snap one after 29th March might be called, or possibly before if the govt can't get Brexiteers through the house ?
My guess is that they are thinking about what might happen if they can't get the Withdrawal agreement through the House. There would by no time for a referendum, but a GE can be called quite quickly, and Labour can hardly object, having been asking for one for months. So a GE, high-risk though it is, might be the only possibility, probably with a request for a short extension to Art 50.
Of course it might leave thing back at square 1 if there's again a hung parliament, but I suspect no-one has any better ideas.
I don't think we could go to the public on the back of failure to secure a deal. It would result in a 1997 style wipe out, whatever some of our members and MPs seem to believe.
No, what I'm suggesting is that we get a deal with the EU, but Labour and a few ultras block it. In that circumstance, going to the electorate for a mandate to ratify the deal could make sense, or at least more sense than any other course of action.
Well, provided she doesn’t talk about long term social care for the elderly again.
But the fact that the government could have balanced the budget for the first time and eliminate the deficit - but instead chose to spend the money on a series of giveaways - is actually a sign of political weakness and an indication of how close to panic they are, as Brexit looms.
There’s enough wiggle room in there to close the deficit entirely by 2025 if things pick up just a little bit.
Don’t tell Brenda from Bristol, but there’s some chatter in the City tonight that Philip Hammond may have been paving the way for an early general election.
You read it first here, and before Hammond stood up.
He’s giving himself options.
It reminds Tory MPs why they’re Tories whilst also gives a nice retail offer to the electorate should a GE be necessary.
SPIN have settled on one 'pensions' and two 'educations'. Oh well, it was worth a punt.
Interesting that there were no changes to pensions at all, either the State Pension or the rules for contributing to pensions.
It seems a bit unfair when there were so many unnecessary words.
Suited me, I was on longer than 60 min at 4/1.
Nice income tax cut for me, worth a grand a year, I reckon, more money for the NHS so as much overtime as I choose to do, and no tax on my lump sum next year.
Don’t tell Brenda from Bristol, but there’s some chatter in the City tonight that Philip Hammond may have been paving the way for an early general election.
You read it first here, and before Hammond stood up.
Do you think a snap one after 29th March might be called, or possibly before if the govt can't get Brexiteers through the house ?
My guess is that they are thinking about what might happen if they can't get the Withdrawal agreement through the House. There would by no time for a referendum, but a GE can be called quite quickly, and Labour can hardly object, having been asking for one for months. So a GE, high-risk though it is, might be the only possibility, probably with a request for a short extension to Art 50.
Of course it might leave thing back at square 1 if there's again a hung parliament, but I suspect no-one has any better ideas.
I don't think we could go to the public on the back of failure to secure a deal. It would result in a 1997 style wipe out, whatever some of our members and MPs seem to believe.
No, what I'm suggesting is that we get a deal with the EU, but Labour and a few ultras block it. In that circumstance, going to the electorate for a mandate to ratify the deal could make sense, or at least more sense than any other course of action.
McDonnell suggested Labour could back the Withdrawal Agreement yesterday anyway as Labour back the backstop for NI and Citizens' rights and the transition period etc. It is the ERG and DUP who oppose the backstop and the likely Withdrawal Agreement and Chequers, Labour only oppose Chequers but Chequers will only be negotiated as a basis for the future economic relationship in a transition period.
Labour could vote against the government on a No confidence vote though if the Withdrawal Agreement passes and hope the DUP and some ERG MPs join them
SPIN have settled on one 'pensions' and two 'educations'. Oh well, it was worth a punt.
Interesting that there were no changes to pensions at all, either the State Pension or the rules for contributing to pensions.
It seems a bit unfair when there were so many unnecessary words.
Suited me, I was on longer than 60 min at 4/1.
Nice income tax cut for me, worth a grand a year, I reckon, more money for the NHS so as much overtime as I choose to do, and no tax on my lump sum next year.
I have always rated spreadsheet Phil.
It’s that kind of disinterested analysis that always makes Budget day so much fun.
So income tax changes for 2019/20 Half average earnings (£14k) saving £130 pa Average earnings (£28k) saving £130 pa Twice average earnings (£56k) (97th centile) saving £860 pa
Well austerity might be over for a few @Conservatives for the few not the many
Don’t tell Brenda from Bristol, but there’s some chatter in the City tonight that Philip Hammond may have been paving the way for an early general election.
You read it first here, and before Hammond stood up.
Con can't allow The Glum's (May and Hammond) to face the electorate for a second time...
So income tax changes for 2019/20 Half average earnings (£14k) saving £130 pa Average earnings (£28k) saving £130 pa Twice average earnings (£56k) (97th centile) saving £860 pa
Well austerity might be over for a few @Conservatives for the few not the many
Don’t tell Brenda from Bristol, but there’s some chatter in the City tonight that Philip Hammond may have been paving the way for an early general election.
You read it first here, and before Hammond stood up.
He’s giving himself options.
It reminds Tory MPs why they’re Tories whilst also gives a nice retail offer to the electorate should a GE be necessary.
Although I don't think he'd hold one, this makes sense. Their great mistake last time was in effect not being on a political election footing - no retail offers to build on, no grand narrative, so got fought to a standstill by an oppositio who were because they were preparing a blitz of goodies to save Corbyn anyway. He and and May so need to a) state at least level pegging in the polls b) divide the merely grumpy from the lunatics and c) be ready to soften the blow of the inevitable bad Brexit d) be prepared to hold one if their frothers threaten to burn down the house. This we saw small giveaways that can be expanded on should the need arise - either to dissuade dissenters or as a big offer to voters in the event of an election or dip in fortunes.
So income tax changes for 2019/20 Half average earnings (£14k) saving £130 pa Average earnings (£28k) saving £130 pa Twice average earnings (£56k) (97th centile) saving £860 pa
Well austerity might be over for a few @Conservatives for the few not the many
What a spectacularly silly post.
Not least because according to the BBC calculator I am another £20 a month worse off, even before I get to pay my extra tariffs for living in Scotland.
So income tax changes for 2019/20 Half average earnings (£14k) saving £130 pa Average earnings (£28k) saving £130 pa Twice average earnings (£56k) (97th centile) saving £860 pa
Well austerity might be over for a few @Conservatives for the few not the many
What a spectacularly silly post.
So Richard do tell me the error in these figures. With the huge (and unnecessary) increase in the 40% threshhold anyone over £46k will benefit much more from the income tax changes.
There still seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about UC.
No existing claimants moving onto UC lose anything at all - there is 100% transitional protection.
The losers are new claimants - who can lose massive sums compared to what they would have got under the old system.
But of course new claimants don't know what they would have got under the old system - hence why there hasn't been a big public outcry. Matt Hancock is in an area which adopted UC early and he hasn't received a single letter about it.
Paul Johnson seems to be the only person who actually understands what's going on - there are huge losers (and some winners) but they are new claimants - in order to ensure no new claimant loses vs the old system would actually cost about £10bn per year from memory.
But Johnson says the big risk for the Govt is a completely different one - it's of the admin falling over such that there are massive delays in payments.
So income tax changes for 2019/20 Half average earnings (£14k) saving £130 pa Average earnings (£28k) saving £130 pa Twice average earnings (£56k) (97th centile) saving £860 pa
Well austerity might be over for a few @Conservatives for the few not the many
What a spectacularly silly post.
Not least because according to the BBC calculator I am another £20 a month worse off, even before I get to pay my extra tariffs for living in Scotland.
But most of all because if you choose just one tax or spending measure, you can make up any result you like.
So income tax changes for 2019/20 Half average earnings (£14k) saving £130 pa Average earnings (£28k) saving £130 pa Twice average earnings (£56k) (97th centile) saving £860 pa
Well austerity might be over for a few @Conservatives for the few not the many
What a spectacularly silly post.
Not least because according to the BBC calculator I am another £20 a month worse off, even before I get to pay my extra tariffs for living in Scotland.
But most of all because if you choose just one tax or spending measure, you can make up any result you like.
So income tax changes for 2019/20 Half average earnings (£14k) saving £130 pa Average earnings (£28k) saving £130 pa Twice average earnings (£56k) (97th centile) saving £860 pa
Well austerity might be over for a few @Conservatives for the few not the many
What a spectacularly silly post.
So Richard do tell me the error in these figures. With the huge (and unnecessary) increase in the 40% threshhold anyone over £46k will benefit much more from the income tax changes.
The error is that no-one remotely sane would cherry-pick one just one tax/benefit to analyse the distributional effect of a budget.
So income tax changes for 2019/20 Half average earnings (£14k) saving £130 pa Average earnings (£28k) saving £130 pa Twice average earnings (£56k) (97th centile) saving £860 pa
Well austerity might be over for a few @Conservatives for the few not the many
What a spectacularly silly post.
So Richard do tell me the error in these figures. With the huge (and unnecessary) increase in the 40% threshhold anyone over £46k will benefit much more from the income tax changes.
The error is that no-one remotely sane would cherry-pick one just one tax/benefit to analyse the distributional effect of a budget.
There are many of us who just pay tax and NI and receive no benefits.
Budget not going down well with everybody. Teachers seem particular angry that more on potholes and Hammond talking about money for those little extras.
So income tax changes for 2019/20 Half average earnings (£14k) saving £130 pa Average earnings (£28k) saving £130 pa Twice average earnings (£56k) (97th centile) saving £860 pa
Well austerity might be over for a few @Conservatives for the few not the many
What a spectacularly silly post.
So Richard do tell me the error in these figures. With the huge (and unnecessary) increase in the 40% threshhold anyone over £46k will benefit much more from the income tax changes.
The error is that no-one remotely sane would cherry-pick one just one tax/benefit to analyse the distributional effect of a budget.
Don't you believe it! Of all the things that the Chancellor has done, that was the one that caught my eye. I appreciate that the threshold was held by Osborne for a number of years, but I'd suggest increasing it by as much as he has is a mistake.
So income tax changes for 2019/20 Half average earnings (£14k) saving £130 pa Average earnings (£28k) saving £130 pa Twice average earnings (£56k) (97th centile) saving £860 pa
Well austerity might be over for a few @Conservatives for the few not the many
What a spectacularly silly post.
So Richard do tell me the error in these figures. With the huge (and unnecessary) increase in the 40% threshhold anyone over £46k will benefit much more from the income tax changes.
The error is that no-one remotely sane would cherry-pick one just one tax/benefit to analyse the distributional effect of a budget.
There are many of us who just pay tax and NI and receive no benefits.
There still seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about UC.
No existing claimants moving onto UC lose anything at all - there is 100% transitional protection.
The losers are new claimants - who can lose massive sums compared to what they would have got under the old system.
But of course new claimants don't know what they would have got under the old system - hence why there hasn't been a big public outcry. Matt Hancock is in an area which adopted UC early and he hasn't received a single letter about it.
Paul Johnson seems to be the only person who actually understands what's going on - there are huge losers (and some winners) but they are new claimants - in order to ensure no new claimant loses vs the old system would actually cost about £10bn per year from memory.
But Johnson says the big risk for the Govt is a completely different one - it's of the admin falling over such that there are massive delays in payments.
I don't think it's true that existing UC claimants are all protected by transitional relief. My understanding is that the relief only applies as long as your claims don't change. In practice many people on low incomes have variable circumstances - sporadic earnings, periodic illness and so on.
Budget not going down well with everybody. Teachers seem particular angry that more on potholes and Hammond talking about money for those little extras.
Is it even possible to have a budget that goes down well with everybody?
I have to say though that teachers generally seem pretty angry in my experience. I won't tackle the question of whether it is justified.
So income tax changes for 2019/20 Half average earnings (£14k) saving £130 pa Average earnings (£28k) saving £130 pa Twice average earnings (£56k) (97th centile) saving £860 pa
Well austerity might be over for a few @Conservatives for the few not the many
What a spectacularly silly post.
So Richard do tell me the error in these figures. With the huge (and unnecessary) increase in the 40% threshhold anyone over £46k will benefit much more from the income tax changes.
The error is that no-one remotely sane would cherry-pick one just one tax/benefit to analyse the distributional effect of a budget.
Don't you believe it! Of all the things that the Chancellor has done, that was the one that caught my eye. I appreciate that the threshold was held by Osborne for a number of years, but I'd suggest increasing it by as much as he has is a mistake.
It's certainly a surprisingly big change, yes. A mistake? Dunno. In electoral terms probably not - it most helps the upper-middle-range income families, who have been pretty badly hit relative to other groups in recent years.
The cumulative effect of measures since the Autumn statement 2016 looks pretty sensible:
There still seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about UC.
No existing claimants moving onto UC lose anything at all - there is 100% transitional protection.
The losers are new claimants - who can lose massive sums compared to what they would have got under the old system.
But of course new claimants don't know what they would have got under the old system - hence why there hasn't been a big public outcry. Matt Hancock is in an area which adopted UC early and he hasn't received a single letter about it.
Paul Johnson seems to be the only person who actually understands what's going on - there are huge losers (and some winners) but they are new claimants - in order to ensure no new claimant loses vs the old system would actually cost about £10bn per year from memory.
But Johnson says the big risk for the Govt is a completely different one - it's of the admin falling over such that there are massive delays in payments.
But the tiniest change in circumstances, moves existing claimants onto the new system.
So income tax changes for 2019/20 Half average earnings (£14k) saving £130 pa Average earnings (£28k) saving £130 pa Twice average earnings (£56k) (97th centile) saving £860 pa
Well austerity might be over for a few @Conservatives for the few not the many
What a spectacularly silly post.
So Richard do tell me the error in these figures. With the huge (and unnecessary) increase in the 40% threshhold anyone over £46k will benefit much more from the income tax changes.
The error is that no-one remotely sane would cherry-pick one just one tax/benefit to analyse the distributional effect of a budget.
There are many of us who just pay tax and NI and receive no benefits.
Not on £14K, generally.
A single person with no savings and no children will not get any Universal Credit at £14k.
So income tax changes for 2019/20 Half average earnings (£14k) saving £130 pa Average earnings (£28k) saving £130 pa Twice average earnings (£56k) (97th centile) saving £860 pa
Well austerity might be over for a few @Conservatives for the few not the many
What a spectacularly silly post.
So Richard do tell me the error in these figures. With the huge (and unnecessary) increase in the 40% threshhold anyone over £46k will benefit much more from the income tax changes.
The error is that no-one remotely sane would cherry-pick one just one tax/benefit to analyse the distributional effect of a budget.
Don't you believe it! Of all the things that the Chancellor has done, that was the one that caught my eye. I appreciate that the threshold was held by Osborne for a number of years, but I'd suggest increasing it by as much as he has is a mistake.
It's certainly a surprisingly big change, yes. A mistake? Dunno. In electoral terms probably not - it most helps the upper-middle-range income families, who have been pretty badly hit relative to other groups in recent years.
The cumulative effect of measures since the Autumn statement 2016 looks pretty sensible:
Yet again we have the fantasy that there's anything "middle" about an income of £46k. £46k was the 86th centile in 2015/16. I get fed up of those on such incomes bleating about poorly off they are. Get into the real world.
So income tax changes for 2019/20 Half average earnings (£14k) saving £130 pa Average earnings (£28k) saving £130 pa Twice average earnings (£56k) (97th centile) saving £860 pa
Well austerity might be over for a few @Conservatives for the few not the many
What a spectacularly silly post.
So Richard do tell me the error in these figures. With the huge (and unnecessary) increase in the 40% threshhold anyone over £46k will benefit much more from the income tax changes.
The error is that no-one remotely sane would cherry-pick one just one tax/benefit to analyse the distributional effect of a budget.
There are many of us who just pay tax and NI and receive no benefits.
Not on £14K, generally.
A single person with no savings and no children will not get any Universal Credit at £14k.
In those particular circumstances, the person will pay 31% less tax in total in 2019/20 than they would before the budget. They would probably also benefit from the increase in the Minimum Wage. People in different circumstances would be affected in different ways. It makes no sense to generalise about the impact on the basis of one tax measure.
So income tax changes for 2019/20 Half average earnings (£14k) saving £130 pa Average earnings (£28k) saving £130 pa Twice average earnings (£56k) (97th centile) saving £860 pa
Well austerity might be over for a few @Conservatives for the few not the many
What a spectacularly silly post.
So Richard do tell me the error in these figures. With the huge (and unnecessary) increase in the 40% threshhold anyone over £46k will benefit much more from the income tax changes.
The error is that no-one remotely sane would cherry-pick one just one tax/benefit to analyse the distributional effect of a budget.
Don't you believe it! Of all the things that the Chancellor has done, that was the one that caught my eye. I appreciate that the threshold was held by Osborne for a number of years, but I'd suggest increasing it by as much as he has is a mistake.
It's certainly a surprisingly big change, yes. A mistake? Dunno. In electoral terms probably not - it most helps the upper-middle-range income families, who have been pretty badly hit relative to other groups in recent years.
The cumulative effect of measures since the Autumn statement 2016 looks pretty sensible:
Yet again we have the fantasy that there's anything "middle" about an income of £46k. £46k was the 86th centile in 2015/16. I get fed up of those on such incomes bleating about poorly off they are. Get into the real world.
You don't seem to have quite understood the word 'upper'.
There still seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about UC.
No existing claimants moving onto UC lose anything at all - there is 100% transitional protection.
The losers are new claimants - who can lose massive sums compared to what they would have got under the old system.
But of course new claimants don't know what they would have got under the old system - hence why there hasn't been a big public outcry. Matt Hancock is in an area which adopted UC early and he hasn't received a single letter about it.
Paul Johnson seems to be the only person who actually understands what's going on - there are huge losers (and some winners) but they are new claimants - in order to ensure no new claimant loses vs the old system would actually cost about £10bn per year from memory.
But Johnson says the big risk for the Govt is a completely different one - it's of the admin falling over such that there are massive delays in payments.
I don't think it's true that existing UC claimants are all protected by transitional relief. My understanding is that the relief only applies as long as your claims don't change. In practice many people on low incomes have variable circumstances - sporadic earnings, periodic illness and so on.
So councils are to get £650m extra in this year's settlement but which Council gets how much isn't of course stated. The £84m for Childrens Services is spread over five years so is a drop in the ocean. £420m will help with potholes but again where will it go and how does it stack against the estimated £8 billion total repair bill?
A lot of this largesse is a political gimmick - no one seriously believes it does any more than kick the can down the road for another year and the scale of the financial pressures facing some authorities will be exposed when budgets are set in the early part of next year and of course for many District and Borough Councils it's election time in May 2019..
So income tax changes for 2019/20 Half average earnings (£14k) saving £130 pa Average earnings (£28k) saving £130 pa Twice average earnings (£56k) (97th centile) saving £860 pa
Well austerity might be over for a few @Conservatives for the few not the many
What a spectacularly silly post.
So Richard do tell me the error in these figures. With the huge (and unnecessary) increase in the 40% threshhold anyone over £46k will benefit much more from the income tax changes.
The error is that no-one remotely sane would cherry-pick one just one tax/benefit to analyse the distributional effect of a budget.
Don't you believe it! Of all the things that the Chancellor has done, that was the one that caught my eye. I appreciate that the threshold was held by Osborne for a number of years, but I'd suggest increasing it by as much as he has is a mistake.
It's certainly a surprisingly big change, yes. A mistake? Dunno. In electoral terms probably not - it most helps the upper-middle-range income families, who have been pretty badly hit relative to other groups in recent years.
The cumulative effect of measures since the Autumn statement 2016 looks pretty sensible:
Yet again we have the fantasy that there's anything "middle" about an income of £46k. £46k was the 86th centile in 2015/16. I get fed up of those on such incomes bleating about poorly off they are. Get into the real world.
You don't seem to have quite understood the word 'upper'.
If you are earning £50,000 a year, the chancellor has just handed you a £860 income tax cut – or six times the £130 that will go to someone who earns £12,500 a year – as the centrepiece of a mildly giveaway budget haunted by the prospect of Brexit and anaemic economic growth.
I hope Spreadsheet Phil is prepared for how to answer questions on this tomorrow.
EDIT: Ah, the small print!
Some of this gain will be clawed back by changes to national insurance – which were not mentioned in the budget. The starting points for national insurance will rise only in line with inflation, or much less than the income tax giveaway, while on those earnings between £46,350 and £50,000 there will be 12% NI to pay. Accountants suggest that the £50,000 earner will be around £520 a year better off once NI is taken into account.
SPIN have settled on one 'pensions' and two 'educations'. Oh well, it was worth a punt.
Interesting that there were no changes to pensions at all, either the State Pension or the rules for contributing to pensions.
It seems a bit unfair when there were so many unnecessary words.
Suited me, I was on longer than 60 min at 4/1.
Nice income tax cut for me, worth a grand a year, I reckon, more money for the NHS so as much overtime as I choose to do, and no tax on my lump sum next year.
I have always rated spreadsheet Phil.
It’s that kind of disinterested analysis that always makes Budget day so much fun.
Seriously, Phil Hammond is the only member of the cabinet that I would vote for. I like his grip on the finances and willingness to stand firm against the loonier members around the table.
SPIN have settled on one 'pensions' and two 'educations'. Oh well, it was worth a punt.
Interesting that there were no changes to pensions at all, either the State Pension or the rules for contributing to pensions.
It seems a bit unfair when there were so many unnecessary words.
Suited me, I was on longer than 60 min at 4/1.
Nice income tax cut for me, worth a grand a year, I reckon, more money for the NHS so as much overtime as I choose to do, and no tax on my lump sum next year.
I have always rated spreadsheet Phil.
It’s that kind of disinterested analysis that always makes Budget day so much fun.
Seriously, Phil Hammond is the only member of the cabinet that I would vote for. I like his grip on the finances and willingness to stand firm against the loonier members around the table.
Remember, there are two types of chancellor: those that fail and those that get out in time.
So income tax changes for 2019/20 Half average earnings (£14k) saving £130 pa Average earnings (£28k) saving £130 pa Twice average earnings (£56k) (97th centile) saving £860 pa
Well austerity might be over for a few @Conservatives for the few not the many
What a spectacularly silly post.
So Richard do tell me the error in these figures. With the huge (and unnecessary) increase in the 40% threshhold anyone over £46k will benefit much more from the income tax changes.
The error is that no-one remotely sane would cherry-pick one just one tax/benefit to analyse the distributional effect of a budget.
Don't you believe it! Of all the things that the Chancellor has done, that was the one that caught my eye. I appreciate that the threshold was held by Osborne for a number of years, but I'd suggest increasing it by as much as he has is a mistake.
It's certainly a surprisingly big change, yes. A mistake? Dunno. In electoral terms probably not - it most helps the upper-middle-range income families, who have been pretty badly hit relative to other groups in recent years.
The cumulative effect of measures since the Autumn statement 2016 looks pretty sensible:
Yet again we have the fantasy that there's anything "middle" about an income of £46k. £46k was the 86th centile in 2015/16. I get fed up of those on such incomes bleating about poorly off they are. Get into the real world.
£46k in the South East means a pretty frugal lifestyle, especially if you have a family to support.
So income tax changes for 2019/20 Half average earnings (£14k) saving £130 pa Average earnings (£28k) saving £130 pa Twice average earnings (£56k) (97th centile) saving £860 pa
Well austerity might be over for a few @Conservatives for the few not the many
What a spectacularly silly post.
Also a little misleading. According to HMRC spreadsheet £56K is 91st percentile and anyone 86th or above will gain something from higher rate threshold increase. So it is for the higher paid but benefiting more than 10% rather than 3%.
So income tax changes for 2019/20 Half average earnings (£14k) saving £130 pa Average earnings (£28k) saving £130 pa Twice average earnings (£56k) (97th centile) saving £860 pa
Well austerity might be over for a few @Conservatives for the few not the many
What a spectacularly silly post.
So Richard do tell me the error in these figures. With the huge (and unnecessary) increase in the 40% threshhold anyone over £46k will benefit much more from the income tax changes.
The error is that no-one remotely sane would cherry-pick one just one tax/benefit to analyse the distributional effect of a budget.
There are many of us who just pay tax and NI and receive no benefits.
Not on £14K, generally.
A single person with no savings and no children will not get any Universal Credit at £14k.
There is obviously a gap in the political market for a party to stand up for "lazy single people" since every other party tries to cater for "hard working families".
So income tax changes for 2019/20 Half average earnings (£14k) saving £130 pa Average earnings (£28k) saving £130 pa Twice average earnings (£56k) (97th centile) saving £860 pa
Well austerity might be over for a few @Conservatives for the few not the many
What a spectacularly silly post.
So Richard do tell me the error in these figures. With the huge (and unnecessary) increase in the 40% threshhold anyone over £46k will benefit much more from the income tax changes.
The error is that no-one remotely sane would cherry-pick one just one tax/benefit to analyse the distributional effect of a budget.
There are many of us who just pay tax and NI and receive no benefits.
Not on £14K, generally.
A single person with no savings and no children will not get any Universal Credit at £14k.
There is obviously a gap in the political market for a party to stand up for "lazy single people" since every other party tries to cater for "hard working families".
So income tax changes for 2019/20 Half average earnings (£14k) saving £130 pa Average earnings (£28k) saving £130 pa Twice average earnings (£56k) (97th centile) saving £860 pa
Well austerity might be over for a few @Conservatives for the few not the many
What a spectacularly silly post.
So Richard do tell me the error in these figures. With the huge (and unnecessary) increase in the 40% threshhold anyone over £46k will benefit much more from the income tax changes.
The error is that no-one remotely sane would cherry-pick one just one tax/benefit to analyse the distributional effect of a budget.
There are many of us who just pay tax and NI and receive no benefits.
Not on £14K, generally.
A single person with no savings and no children will not get any Universal Credit at £14k.
There is obviously a gap in the political market for a party to stand up for "lazy single people" since every other party tries to cater for "hard working families".
Finally someone to speak to my demographic.
How about you and I form this new party together? I'd have to quit my job, but I daresay I could survive that.
So income tax changes for 2019/20 Half average earnings (£14k) saving £130 pa Average earnings (£28k) saving £130 pa Twice average earnings (£56k) (97th centile) saving £860 pa
Well austerity might be over for a few @Conservatives for the few not the many
What a spectacularly silly post.
So Richard do tell me the error in these figures. With the huge (and unnecessary) increase in the 40% threshhold anyone over £46k will benefit much more from the income tax changes.
The error is that no-one remotely sane would cherry-pick one just one tax/benefit to analyse the distributional effect of a budget.
There are many of us who just pay tax and NI and receive no benefits.
Not on £14K, generally.
A single person with no savings and no children will not get any Universal Credit at £14k.
There is obviously a gap in the political market for a party to stand up for "lazy single people" since every other party tries to cater for "hard working families".
Finally someone to speak to my demographic.
How about you and I form this new party together? I'd have to quit my job, but I daresay I could survive that.
It sounds a great idea, but when standing up for the lazy, how could anyone have the effort to lead? Quite the conundrum.
So income tax changes for 2019/20 Half average earnings (£14k) saving £130 pa Average earnings (£28k) saving £130 pa Twice average earnings (£56k) (97th centile) saving £860 pa
Well austerity might be over for a few @Conservatives for the few not the many
What a spectacularly silly post.
So Richard do tell me the error in these figures. With the huge (and unnecessary) increase in the 40% threshhold anyone over £46k will benefit much more from the income tax changes.
The error is that no-one remotely sane would cherry-pick one just one tax/benefit to analyse the distributional effect of a budget.
There are many of us who just pay tax and NI and receive no benefits.
Not on £14K, generally.
A single person with no savings and no children will not get any Universal Credit at £14k.
There is obviously a gap in the political market for a party to stand up for "lazy single people" since every other party tries to cater for "hard working families".
Finally someone to speak to my demographic.
How about you and I form this new party together? I'd have to quit my job, but I daresay I could survive that.
It sounds a great idea, but when standing up for the lazy, how could anyone have the effort to lead? Quite the conundrum.
I think someone like Bad Janet from The Good Place would make a good leader of your party.
So income tax changes for 2019/20 Half average earnings (£14k) saving £130 pa Average earnings (£28k) saving £130 pa Twice average earnings (£56k) (97th centile) saving £860 pa
Well austerity might be over for a few @Conservatives for the few not the many
What a spectacularly silly post.
So Richard do tell me the error in these figures. With the huge (and unnecessary) increase in the 40% threshhold anyone over £46k will benefit much more from the income tax changes.
The error is that no-one remotely sane would cherry-pick one just one tax/benefit to analyse the distributional effect of a budget.
There are many of us who just pay tax and NI and receive no benefits.
Not on £14K, generally.
A single person with no savings and no children will not get any Universal Credit at £14k.
There is obviously a gap in the political market for a party to stand up for "lazy single people" since every other party tries to cater for "hard working families".
Comments
After all, HMRC has lost the vast majority of their IR35 cases in the past decade when they have taken the ones they judge to be the most egregious and blatant offenders to tribunal. Implying that their judgement on how many freelancers are actually breaking the rules is hugely incorrect.
The Off-Payroll rules they rolled out in the public sector not only use a tool that's incorrectly set up to make "inside IR35" judgements (as shown from a number of cases) but put the default pressure on bodies that don't like assuming risk to make a blanket "inside IR35" call.
There was a particularly amusing case recently where a contractor who'd been placed inside IR35 by the tool took the body to court for withholding a set of NI payments incorrectly, "lost" the case and the judge said he was definitely not an employee. So if he'd won, he'd have been owed several thousand pounds. Because he lost, he was owed... several thousand pounds for another reason. A true "win-win" case.
I am going to phrase this as carefully as possible.
Experience has taught us that men (and sometimes women) with a sexual interest in children will do whatever is necessary to put themselves in a position where they have access to children and where their position is such that they will not be (or are very unlikely to be) questioned.
It is therefore likely that men wishing to harm women will do whatever is necessary to put themselves in a position where they can do so. Self-id and, therefore (if the proposals go through without any sort of controls / medical diagnosis) the ability to access spaces where there are women, often in a vulnerable position (refuges, changing rooms etc) provides an opportunity for such men and puts women at risk. An unnecessary risk. The right of women to be safe is important. The right to do without a bit of bureaucracy is not an important right. Indeed, what is described as a bit of bureaucracy are safeguards to ensure that changing gender is genuine, a properly thought out decision, medically recognised and evidenced by changes in behaviour.
I am not, please note, comparing transgender people to paedophiles. I am comparing rapists to paedophiles in that both will take advantage of opportunities to do harm to their intended victims. I do not think that we should create more such opportunities. There is a process for changing gender. Make improvements to that process to help genuine transgender people, by all means. But do not do so in a way which diminishes womens’ rights.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-46018859/pumpkin-boat-paddled-down-river-ouse-in-york
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6139305/Transgender-prisoner-rapist-identifies-woman-admits-sexually-assaulting-fellow-inmates.html
I discussed this case with my all-female Ethics A-level class, and they all felt this was a sign something has gone very wrong with equality law.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/londoners-diary/the-londoner-dent-coad-stands-by-bonfire-remark-a3974516.html
@DavidL I am dutifully watching Star Trek V. It's really bad. I forgave you. Can you forgive me please?
Don’t tell Brenda from Bristol, but there’s some chatter in the City tonight that Philip Hammond may have been paving the way for an early general election.
You read it first here, and before Hammond stood up.
Sadly the subsequent governments did nothing to undo the bad work of that and further compounded it.
As of yet, we don't have any real understanding on the long term effects of the apparent growth in gender-related issues. And until we do, we should tread very lightly lest we do harm. We have no idea what the unintended consequences of these changes will be.
Everyone should be as free as possible to live their lives as they want. But basic protections for society as a whole should be maintained.
We are dealing with a modern view of gender that is a recent creation. Add to that a conflation of gender with sexuality and we are creating tensions that are doing harm on both sides of the divide.
The proposed changes to the GRA should be paused until sufficient medical and sociological evidence is produced that backs up what is envisioned. As of yet, I have seen nothing to justify such a radical reshaping of our society.
At the end of the day, we still have to medically treat individuals on the basis of their biological sex. No amount of self-id will change that basic truth. That does not mean that unnecessary barriers to should be created to stop people living as they choose. But it does mean that the law should not be used to further an agenda rather than creating the best possible environment for self-expression as well as societal protection.
Interesting that there were no changes to pensions at all, either the State Pension or the rules for contributing to pensions.
Anyone fancy a job as an airline pilot?
https://twitter.com/AeroSociety/status/1053368974937858048
But the fact that the government could have balanced the budget for the first time and eliminate the deficit - but instead chose to spend the money on a series of giveaways - is actually a sign of political weakness and an indication of how close to panic they are, as Brexit looms.
Of course it might leave thing back at square one if there's again a hung parliament, but I suspect no-one has any better ideas.
It reminds Tory MPs why they’re Tories whilst also gives a nice retail offer to the electorate should a GE be necessary.
It seems a bit unfair when there were so many unnecessary words.
Tax flight from Scotland is already underway - could it accelerate ?
I'm still just about sane. Don't mention rocket boots though...
Nice income tax cut for me, worth a grand a year, I reckon, more money for the NHS so as much overtime as I choose to do, and no tax on my lump sum next year.
I have always rated spreadsheet Phil.
[Klingon Ambassador belches] "I guess that's Klingon for hello!"
- "I do not believe you realize the gravity of your situation."
- "Gravity was foremost on my mind."
"Please, Captain - not in front of the Klingons!"
Um, you get the picture.
Labour could vote against the government on a No confidence vote though if the Withdrawal Agreement passes and hope the DUP and some ERG MPs join them
Half average earnings (£14k) saving £130 pa
Average earnings (£28k) saving £130 pa
Twice average earnings (£56k) (97th centile) saving £860 pa
Well austerity might be over for a few
@Conservatives for the few not the many
#electoralsuicide
No existing claimants moving onto UC lose anything at all - there is 100% transitional protection.
The losers are new claimants - who can lose massive sums compared to what they would have got under the old system.
But of course new claimants don't know what they would have got under the old system - hence why there hasn't been a big public outcry. Matt Hancock is in an area which adopted UC early and he hasn't received a single letter about it.
Paul Johnson seems to be the only person who actually understands what's going on - there are huge losers (and some winners) but they are new claimants - in order to ensure no new claimant loses vs the old system would actually cost about £10bn per year from memory.
But Johnson says the big risk for the Govt is a completely different one - it's of the admin falling over such that there are massive delays in payments.
Effect of change to Universal Credit:
Family on £14K: +£630
Banker on £200K: £0.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6330289/Protest-WASPI-women-House-Commons-Philip-Hammond-budget-speech.html
I have to say though that teachers generally seem pretty angry in my experience. I won't tackle the question of whether it is justified.
The cumulative effect of measures since the Autumn statement 2016 looks pretty sensible:
https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/f2866e2140fbfeca60c9cf033dd97f5f96c20172/0_0_617_440/master/617.png?width=620&quality=85&auto=format&fit=max&s=ec39fa577045b92f798a394748333419
Public Finance has their take on the Budget:
https://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2018/10/hammond-hands-out-billions-saying-austerity-ending1?utm_source=Adestra&utm_medium=email&utm_term=
So councils are to get £650m extra in this year's settlement but which Council gets how much isn't of course stated. The £84m for Childrens Services is spread over five years so is a drop in the ocean. £420m will help with potholes but again where will it go and how does it stack against the estimated £8 billion total repair bill?
A lot of this largesse is a political gimmick - no one seriously believes it does any more than kick the can down the road for another year and the scale of the financial pressures facing some authorities will be exposed when budgets are set in the early part of next year and of course for many District and Borough Councils it's election time in May 2019..
If you are earning £50,000 a year, the chancellor has just handed you a £860 income tax cut – or six times the £130 that will go to someone who earns £12,500 a year – as the centrepiece of a mildly giveaway budget haunted by the prospect of Brexit and anaemic economic growth.
I hope Spreadsheet Phil is prepared for how to answer questions on this tomorrow.
EDIT: Ah, the small print!
Some of this gain will be clawed back by changes to national insurance – which were not mentioned in the budget. The starting points for national insurance will rise only in line with inflation, or much less than the income tax giveaway, while on those earnings between £46,350 and £50,000 there will be 12% NI to pay. Accountants suggest that the £50,000 earner will be around £520 a year better off once NI is taken into account.