I grew up as an English expat "Pommie Bastard" in Australia, supporting England in the Ashes in the 1990s. I'll never take anything for granted against the Convicts.
Mr. Pete, I strongly suspect Boris will be a terrible PM.
That doesn't change the fact he's not far right, and therefore not the atrocious equivalent of Corbyn.
If Boris wins the leadership but Labour ousts Corbyn and replaces him with someone boring but sane, it'd be interesting. But I'll believe the far left has had its grip prised from Labour when it happens.
Yes Corbyn is the personification of the SWP. However in order to achieve his ambition Johnson has jettisoned his 'one nation Tory' baggage; and please excuse the horrific vision, is now in bed with Farage and Trump.
On domestic policy Boris is still 'One nation' on the whole, promising more money for the NHS and police and tax cuts.
I'm not sure how "One Nation" it is to propose tax cuts for the not well off on more than twice average earnings....
It is a tax cut aimed at headmasters, GPs, police inspectors, small business owners, middle managers etc, not the top 1%
Top 10%
For the few not the many
Boris has also said he will take more of the lowest earners out of tax too
Is he giving everyone a £12k tax cut or just those on £80k and above
ie the few not the many
Its hard to "give" a "tax cut" to those who are not those paying taxes.
Boris is also promising more police, more money for the NHS etc.
Boris believes in the laffer curve and tax cuts can increase revenues, under Boris there will be an easing off of austerity and tax cuts, Boris is a Keynesian in many respects
I believe in the laffer curve as well but at what point do you stop? It is a balance and we have had big cuts. And I don't think you will find it will apply to headmasters, police inspectors, GPs. They are not revenue generators.
The "Laffer curve" is a political philosophy masquerading as an economic theory, similar to "trickle down economics". There is a case for easier fiscal policy, but as others have noted there are plenty of areas where a spending increase would be more useful. Personally, I would prefer to see my kids' schools better resourced, to have enough police to keep us safe, to be able to get a doctor's appointment, to deal with the homelessness crisis, even to just keep the pavements a bit cleaner, than to get any kind of tax cut. I am not taxed enough relative to the state of our public services. I would put everybody's taxes up in the long run, starting with the rich.
I grew up as an English expat "Pommie Bastard" in Australia, supporting England in the Ashes in the 1990s. I'll never take anything for granted against the Convicts.
At least now you are here, people are no longer calling you a Pommie...
Mr. Pete, I strongly suspect Boris will be a terrible PM.
That doesn't change the fact he's not far right, and therefore not the atrocious equivalent of Corbyn.
If Boris wins the leadership but Labour ousts Corbyn and replaces him with someone boring but sane, it'd be interesting. But I'll believe the far left has had its grip prised from Labour when it happens.
Yes Corbyn is the personification of the SWP. However in order to achieve his ambition Johnson has jettisoned his 'one nation Tory' baggage; and please excuse the horrific vision, is now in bed with Farage and Trump.
On domestic policy Boris is still 'One nation' on the whole, promising more money for the NHS and police and tax cuts.
I'm not sure how "One Nation" it is to propose tax cuts for the not well off on more than twice average earnings....
It is a tax cut aimed at headmasters, GPs, police inspectors, small business owners, middle managers etc, not the top 1%
Top 10%
For the few not the many
Boris has also said he will take more of the lowest earners out of tax too
Is he giving everyone a £12k tax cut or just those on £80k and above
ie the few not the many
Its hard to "give" a "tax cut" to those who are not those paying taxes.
Mr. Pete, I strongly suspect Boris will be a terrible PM.
If Boris wins the leadership but Labour ousts Corbyn and replaces him with someone boring but sane, it'd be interesting. But I'll believe the far left has had its grip prised from Labour when it happens.
Yes Corbyn is the personification of the SWP. However in order to achieve his ambition Johnson has jettisoned his 'one nation Tory' baggage; and please excuse the horrific vision, is now in bed with Farage and Trump.
On domestic policy Boris is still 'One nation' on the whole, promising more money for the NHS and police and tax cuts.
I'm not sure how "One Nation" it is to propose tax cuts for the not well off on more than twice average earnings....
It is a tax cut aimed at headmasters, GPs, police inspectors, small business owners, middle managers etc, not the top 1%
Why do these people need a tax cut? I put myself and my wife in these categories and I fail to see why we should get a tax cut. Also is this not just about where the top 1% income starts
Tax cuts are always nice but this is absolutely the wrong e is the small matter of debt reduction as well.
Absolutely agree. I find it impossible to argue from my comfortable large Surrey home, and second home by the seaside that I need more money and it certainly wouldn't even motivate me (although I am now retired) or my wife to actually earn more. It would just be a freebie whereas it could be used better elsewhere. Completely wrong priority aimed at the greedy not the needy.
I am sure headmasters, police inspectors and small businessmen dragged into the 40% rate will be delighted you called them 'the greedy and not the needy'
First of all I said no such thing. As usual you fail to see the point being made and go off on a tangent as you always do.
Any person earning £80K does not need a tax cut. Any person earning £80K who thinks they do need one in priority to people who are really poor are greedy. That is very different, but I suspect that logic goes way over your head.
Nope, you did, there are millions of people in the £50k to £80k bracket and you effectively said they are all greedy.
The lowest earners have already been taken out of income tax altogether by the Coalition
It's wonderful that we have @TheJezziah here so that we can all see how serious the problem in the Labour Party has become. Most of us wouldn't have any contact with such people otherwise.
One of the great things about PB is that we have people of all faiths here.
Mr. Pete, I strongly suspect Boris will be a terrible PM.
That doesn't change the fact he's not far right, and therefore not the atrocious equivalent of Corbyn.
If Boris wins the leadership but Labour ousts Corbyn and replaces him with someone boring but sane, it'd be interesting. But I'll believe the far left has had its grip prised from Labour when it happens.
Yes Corbyn is the personification of the SWP. However in order to achieve his ambition Johnson has jettisoned his 'one nation Tory' baggage; and please excuse the horrific vision, is now in bed with Farage and Trump.
On domestic policy Boris is still 'One nation' on the whole, promising more money for the NHS and police and tax cuts.
I'm not sure how "One Nation" it is to propose tax cuts for the not well off on more than twice average earnings....
It is a tax cut aimed at headmasters, GPs, police inspectors, small business owners, middle managers etc, not the top 1%
Why do these people need a tax cut? I put myself and my wife in these categories and I fail to see why we should get a tax cut. Also is this not just about where the top 1% income starts
Tax cuts are always nice but this is absolutely the wrong priority. Austerity was absolutely necessary in the face of the deficit but surely everyone can see that it has left a legacy of starved public services struggling to provide anything like the quality of service that we want. Social care, student debt, school education, public housing, policing, there is an almost intolerable pressure for more cash. And there is the small matter of debt reduction as well.
Boris is also promising more police, more money for the NHS etc.
Boris believes in the laffer curve and tax cuts can increase revenues, under Boris there will be an easing off of austerity and tax cuts, Boris is a Keynesian in many respects
Rigid adherence to Lafferian (is that a word?) tax cuts can be as foolish as any other fixed ideology.
Mr. Pete, I strongly suspect Boris will be a terrible PM.
That doesn't change the fact he's not far right, and therefore not the atrocious equivalent of Corbyn.
If Boris wins the leadership but Labour ousts Corbyn and replaces him with someone boring but sane, it'd be interesting. But I'll believe the far left has had its grip prised from Labour when it happens.
Yes Corbyn is the personification of the SWP. However in order to achieve his ambition Johnson has jettisoned his 'one nation Tory' baggage; and please excuse the horrific vision, is now in bed with Farage and Trump.
On domestic policy Boris is still 'One nation' on the whole, promising more money for the NHS and police and tax cuts.
I'm not sure how "One Nation" it is to propose tax cuts for the not well off on more than twice average earnings....
It is a tax cut aimed at headmasters, GPs, police inspectors, small business owners, middle managers etc, not the top 1%
As has been pointed out, the top 10% (or less)
Boris Johnson has promised to cut taxes for around 3 million higher earners by raising the 40p threshold from £50,000 to £80,000 if he becomes prime minister......
The pledge to cut tax for higher earners casts doubt on his efforts to present himself as a One Nation Tory, as he courts centrist and moderate Conservatives for his leadership bid.
I suspect he actually thinks people on £50,000-£80,000 "aren't well off". By his standards, they're not.....by almost everybody elses'.....
If Boris was targeting a tax cut at the rich he would have cut the top income tax rate on those earning over £150, 000 a year back to 40%.
Boris' tax cut is aimed at upper middle earners being drawn into the 40p threshold, not the rich 1%
Is he lowering the 45% threshold to stop the very rich benefitting, then?
No, arguably Boris is not helping the rich enough. To do that he should cut the 45% top income tax rate for those earning over £150 000 back to 40% but that is not his priority
You do understand that those over £150K get the maximum gain from the increase of the 40% band to £80K, but you would like to give them even more.
In answer to your other post re small business owners - I was one until recently and this change motivates me not one zilch.
Mr. Pete, I strongly suspect Boris will be a terrible PM.
That doesn't change the fact he's not far right, and therefore not the atrocious equivalent of Corbyn.
If Boris wins the leadership but Labour ousts Corbyn and replaces him with someone boring but sane, it'd be interesting. But I'll believe the far left has had its grip prised from Labour when it happens.
Yes Corbyn is the personification of the SWP. However in order to achieve his ambition Johnson has jettisoned his 'one nation Tory' baggage; and please excuse the horrific vision, is now in bed with Farage and Trump.
On domestic policy Boris is still 'One nation' on the whole, promising more money for the NHS and police and tax cuts.
I'm not sure how "One Nation" it is to propose tax cuts for the not well off on more than twice average earnings....
It is a tax cut aimed at headmasters, GPs, police inspectors, small business owners, middle managers etc, not the top 1%
Top 10%
For the few not the many
Boris has also said he will take more of the lowest earners out of tax too
Is he giving everyone a £12k tax cut or just those on £80k and above
ie the few not the many
Its hard to "give" a "tax cut" to those who are not those paying taxes.
Let me introduce you to the tax credit system...
That's welfare not a tax cut. The entire name is a misnomer and needs redesigning as it leads to upto 90% effective tax rates for people.
I grew up as an English expat "Pommie Bastard" in Australia, supporting England in the Ashes in the 1990s. I'll never take anything for granted against the Convicts.
At least now you are here, people are no longer calling you a Pommie...
Something crying out for Boris' organisational skills:
Britain has failed to make meaningful progress towards a free trade deal with the United States amid “chronic” staffing shortages and communication breakdowns in Whitehall, according to a cache of documents seen by The Telegraph.
Details of meetings spanning two years show how overstretched departments have been working “at cross purposes” as transatlantic talks have repeatedly stumbled over politically sensitive topics such as rules on health, farming and the finance industry.
Officials have begun to fear that American frustration with the lack of agreement or even partial agreement could end hopes of a post-Brexit partnership envisaged at the centre of a “global Britain” trade strategy.
Mr. Pete, I strongly suspect Boris will be a terrible PM.
That doesn't change the fact he's not far right, and therefore not the atrocious equivalent of Corbyn.
If Boris wins the leadership but Labour ousts Corbyn and replaces him with someone boring but sane, it'd be interesting. But I'll believe the far left has had its grip prised from Labour when it happens.
Yes Corbyn is the personification of the SWP. However in order p.
On domestic policy Boris is still 'One nation' on the whole, promising more money for the NHS and police and tax cuts.
I'm not sure how "One Nation" it is to propose tax cuts for the not well off on more than twice average earnings....
It is a tax cut aimed at headmasters, GPs, police inspectors, small business owners, middle managers etc, not the top 1%
As has been pointed out, the top 10% (or less)
Boris Johnson has promised to cut taxes for around 3 million higher earners by raising the 40p threshold from £50,000 to £80,000 if he becomes prime minister......
The pledge to cut tax for higher earners casts doubt on his efforts to present himself as a One Nation Tory, as he courts centrist and moderate Conservatives for his leadership bid.
I suspect he actually thinks people on £50,000-£80,000 "aren't well off". By his standards, they're not.....by almost everybody elses'.....
If Boris was targeting a tax cutinto the 40p threshold, not the rich 1%
Is he lowering the 45% threshold to stop the very rich benefitting, then?
No, arguably Boris is not helping the rich enough. To do that he should cut the 45% top income tax rate for those earning over £150 000 back to 40% but that is not his priority
You do understand that those over £150K get the maximum gain from the increase of the 40% band to £80K, but you would like to give them even more.
In answer to your other post re small business owners - I was one until recently and this change motivates me not one zilch.
They don't as they still have to pay the 45% rate on top which Boris is leaving in place.
If you get to keep more of what you earn of course it benefits you and may also motivate you to work more too, though as an ideological leftwinger of course you would say it does not motivate you
Slightly O/T and possibly too tangential but...I wonder whether some of the spat between Trump and the UK may also be down to last week's two rulings by the UK Competition Authority, the first which announced an investigation into the US online giants and the second which put a block on Amazon's plans to invest in Deliveroo. Trump has threatened a trade war over the French digital tax plans on the grounds it discriminates against US tech companies and he may be thinking there is a level of coordination going on between the UK and France.
It's wonderful that we have @TheJezziah here so that we can all see how serious the problem in the Labour Party has become. Most of us wouldn't have any contact with such people otherwise.
One of the great things about PB is that we have people of all faiths here.
Mr. Pete, I strongly suspect Boris will be a terrible PM.
If Boris and replaces him with had its grip prised from Labour when it happens.
the horrific vision, is now in bed with Farage and Trump.
On domestic policy Boris is still 'One nation' on the whole, promising more money for the NHS and police and tax cuts.
I'm not sure how "One Nation" it is to propose tax cuts for the not well off on more than twice average earnings....
It is a tax cut aimed at headmasters, GPs, police inspectors, small business owners, middle managers etc, not the top 1%
Why do these people need a tax cut? I put myself and my wife in these categories and I fail to see why we should get a tax cut. Also is this not just about where the top 1% income starts
Tax cuts are always nice but this is absolutely the wrong e is the small matter of debt reduction as well.
Absolutely agree. I find it impossible to argue from my comfortable large Surrey home, and second home by the seaside that I need more money and it certainly wouldn't even motivate me (although I am now retired) or my wife to actually earn more. It would just be a freebie whereas it could be used better elsewhere. Completely wrong priority aimed at the greedy not the needy.
I am sure headmasters, police inspectors and small businessmen dragged into the 40% rate will be delighted you called them 'the greedy and not the needy'
First of all I said no such thing. As usual you fail to see the point being made and go off on a tangent as you always do.
Any person earning £80K does not need a tax cut. Any person earning £80K who thinks they do need one in priority to people who are really poor are greedy. That is very different, but I suspect that logic goes way over your head.
Nope, you did, there are millions of people in the £50k to £80k bracket and you effectively said they are all greedy.
The lowest earners have already been taken out of income tax altogether by the Coalition
Bizarre. Incapable of understanding simple logic. Try reading it again. Even more bizarre I gave myself and my wife as examples. I said if someone on £80K thinks they deserve a tax cut over the needs of the poorer members of society then they are greedy. Just a smidging different. Can you not see the difference or can you only comprehend very short sentences.
Something crying out for Boris' organisational skills:
Britain has failed to make meaningful progress towards a free trade deal with the United States amid “chronic” staffing shortages and communication breakdowns in Whitehall, according to a cache of documents seen by The Telegraph.
Details of meetings spanning two years show how overstretched departments have been working “at cross purposes” as transatlantic talks have repeatedly stumbled over politically sensitive topics such as rules on health, farming and the finance industry.
Officials have begun to fear that American frustration with the lack of agreement or even partial agreement could end hopes of a post-Brexit partnership envisaged at the centre of a “global Britain” trade strategy.
Something crying out for Boris' organisational skills:
Britain has failed to make meaningful progress towards a free trade deal with the United States amid “chronic” staffing shortages and communication breakdowns in Whitehall, according to a cache of documents seen by The Telegraph.
Details of meetings spanning two years show how overstretched departments have been working “at cross purposes” as transatlantic talks have repeatedly stumbled over politically sensitive topics such as rules on health, farming and the finance industry.
Officials have begun to fear that American frustration with the lack of agreement or even partial agreement could end hopes of a post-Brexit partnership envisaged at the centre of a “global Britain” trade strategy.
When you combine this story with the grand old Duke of York nonsense about civil servants preparing for no deal, being stood down, then being stood up again you begin to conclude that May's government has been deeply dysfunctional. Lord knows what the American Ambassador says about it.
Mr. Pete, I strongly suspect Boris will be a terrible PM.
That doesn't change the fact he's not far right, and therefore not the atrocious equivalent of Corbyn.
If Boris ws.
Yes Corbyn is the personification of the SWP. However in order p.
On domestic policy Boris is still 'One nation' on the whole, promising more money for the NHS and police and tax cuts.
I'm not sure how "One Nation" it is to propose tax cuts for the not well off on more than twice average earnings....
It is a tax cut aimed at headmasters, GPs, police inspectors, small business owners, middle managers etc, not the top 1%
As has been pointed out, the top 10% (or less)
Boris Johnson has promised to cut taxes for around 3 million higher earners by raising the 40p threshold from £50,000 to £80,000 if he becomes prime minister......
The pledge to cut tax for higher earners casts doubt on his efforts to present himself as a One Nation Tory, as he courts centrist and moderate Conservatives for his leadership bid.
I suspect he actually thinks people on £50,000-£80,000 "aren't well off". By his standards, they're not.....by almost everybody elses'.....
If Boris was targeting a tax cutinto the 40p threshold, not the rich 1%
Is he lowering the 45% threshold to stop the very rich benefitting, then?
No, arguably Boris is not helping the rich enough. To do that he should cut the 45% top income tax rate for those earning over £150 000 back to 40% but that is not his priority
You do understand that those over £150K get the maximum gain from the increase of the 40% band to £80K, but you would like to give them even more.
In answer to your other post re small business owners - I was one until recently and this change motivates me not one zilch.
They don't as they still have to pay the 45% rate on top which Boris is leaving in place.
If you get to keep more of what you earn of course it benefits you and may also motivate you to work more too, though as an ideological leftwinger of course you would say it does not motivate you
How is giving wealthy pensioners the biggest bung of all going to motivate them to do anything worthwhile? The cruise lines are foreign owned.
Run through electoral calculus what would happen if every non-anti-semite Labour supporter voted for the LibDems.
Should all Tory supporters not enamoured of cheap right wing populism vote Liberal Democrat too?
As I presume you plan to do.
I fit your category very well. HYUFD and the POTUS Bum Licker In Chief think they can happily ignore us, because they are only interested in appeasing the swivel-eyed
Something crying out for Boris' organisational skills:
Britain has failed to make meaningful progress towards a free trade deal with the United States amid “chronic” staffing shortages and communication breakdowns in Whitehall, according to a cache of documents seen by The Telegraph.
Details of meetings spanning two years show how overstretched departments have been working “at cross purposes” as transatlantic talks have repeatedly stumbled over politically sensitive topics such as rules on health, farming and the finance industry.
Officials have begun to fear that American frustration with the lack of agreement or even partial agreement could end hopes of a post-Brexit partnership envisaged at the centre of a “global Britain” trade strategy.
not sure how "One Nation" it is to propose tax cuts for the not well off on more than twice average earnings....
It is a tax cut aimed at headmasters, GPs, police inspectors, small business owners, middle managers etc, not the top 1%
As has been pointed out, the top 10% (or less)
Boris Johnson £50,000 to £80,000 if he becomes prime minister......
The pledge to cut tax for higher earners casts doubt on his efforts to present himself as a One Nation Tory, as he courts centrist and moderate Conservatives for his leadership bid.
I suspect he actually thinks people on £50,000-£80,000 "aren't well off". By his standards, they're not.....by almost everybody elses'.....
If Boris was targeting a tax cutinto the 40p threshold, not the rich 1%
Is he lowering the 45% threshold to stop the very rich benefitting, then?
No, arguably Boris is not helping the rich enough. To do that he should cut the 45% top income tax rate for those earning over £150 000 back to 40% but that is not his priority
You do understand that those over £150K get the maximum gain from the increase of the 40% band to £80K, but you would like to give them even more.
In answer to your other post re small business owners - I was one until recently and this change motivates me not one zilch.
They don't as they still have to pay the 45% rate on top which Boris is leaving in place.
If you get to keep more of what you earn of course it benefits you and may also motivate you to work more too, though as an ideological leftwinger of course you would say it does not motivate you
a) I am not a left winger. Assumption jumped to. I believe in free enterprise. Did you not note I ran my own business? I think you will find most businessmen are not motivated by money, but by success.
b) Do you not understand the tax system? The people who get the maximum benefit of the new threshold are those over it so someone on £150K gets the maximum benefit, someone on £20K none and someone in the middle of the new band some of it. So the £150K earners get the maximum benefit. It was for this reason that the tapering of PA on earners over £100k came in so as to mitigate this effect.
Something crying out for Boris' organisational skills:
Britain has failed to make meaningful progress towards a free trade deal with the United States amid “chronic” staffing shortages and communication breakdowns in Whitehall, according to a cache of documents seen by The Telegraph.
Details of meetings spanning two years show how overstretched departments have been working “at cross purposes” as transatlantic talks have repeatedly stumbled over politically sensitive topics such as rules on health, farming and the finance industry.
Officials have begun to fear that American frustration with the lack of agreement or even partial agreement could end hopes of a post-Brexit partnership envisaged at the centre of a “global Britain” trade strategy.
Lord knows what the American Ambassador says about it.
But he should be sacked for saying it. According to some on here.....
I don't think people are saying that. What they are saying is that once it is public that he has said it his utility as ambassador is diminished. Its a rather different point.
Something crying out for Boris' organisational skills:
Britain has failed to make meaningful progress towards a free trade deal with the United States amid “chronic” staffing shortages and communication breakdowns in Whitehall, according to a cache of documents seen by The Telegraph.
Details of meetings spanning two years show how overstretched departments have been working “at cross purposes” as transatlantic talks have repeatedly stumbled over politically sensitive topics such as rules on health, farming and the finance industry.
Officials have begun to fear that American frustration with the lack of agreement or even partial agreement could end hopes of a post-Brexit partnership envisaged at the centre of a “global Britain” trade strategy.
If Boris was targeting a tax cutinto the 40p threshold, not the rich 1%
Is he lowering the 45% threshold to stop the very rich benefitting, then?
No, arguably Boris is not helping the rich enough. To do that he should cut the 45% top income tax rate for those earning over £150 000 back to 40% but that is not his priority
You do understand that those over £150K get the maximum gain from the increase of the 40% band to £80K, but you would like to give them even more.
In answer to your other post re small business owners - I was one until recently and this change motivates me not one zilch.
They don't as they still have to pay the 45% rate on top which Boris is leaving in place.
If you get to keep more of what you earn of course it benefits you and may also motivate you to work more too, though as an ideological leftwinger of course you would say it does not motivate you
How is giving wealthy pensioners the biggest bung of all going to motivate them to do anything worthwhile? The cruise lines are foreign owned.
With respect, it's not giving anyone a 'bung'. It's the Government stealing less of their money. The income tax changes of late have been exclusively focused on reducing the tax burden on the lowest paid - worthy as that is, it's left the overall tax burden far more concentrated on higher earners. Some redress for tax bracket creep due to inflation is badly overdue.
Time was, the Tory party was the party of lower taxes, and wasn't afraid to make the case for them. They need that back.
b) Do you not understand the tax system? The people who get the maximum benefit of the new threshold are those over it so someone on £150K gets the maximum benefit, someone on £20K none and someone in the middle of the new band some of it. So the £150K earners get the maximum benefit. It was for this reason that the tapering of PA on earners over £100k came in so as to mitigate this effect.
Surely someone who is on £80k gets maximum benefit proportionally, which is how we measure taxes?
Someone on £150k may in nominal terms get the same benefit as someone on £80k but in proportional terms they get half the benefit? Or do you dispute the whole logic behind measuring taxes as percentage of income?
Boris Johnson £50,000 to £80,000 if he becomes prime minister......
The pledge to cut tax for higher earners casts doubt on his efforts to present himself as a One Nation Tory, as he courts centrist and moderate Conservatives for his leadership bid.
I suspect he actually thinks people on £50,000-£80,000 "aren't well off". By his standards, they're not.....by almost everybody elses'.....
If Boris was targeting a tax cutinto the 40p threshold, not the rich 1%
Is he lowering the 45% threshold to stop the very rich benefitting, then?
No, arguably Boris is not helping the rich enough. To do that he should cut the 45% top income tax rate for those earning over £150 000 back to 40% but that is not his priority
You do understand that those over £150K get the maximum gain from the increase of the 40% band to £80K, but you would like to give them even more.
In answer to your other post re small business owners - I was one until recently and this change motivates me not one zilch.
They don't as they still have to pay the 45% rate on top which Boris is leaving in place.
If you get to keep more of what you earn of course it benefits you and may also motivate you to work more too, though as an ideological leftwinger of course you would say it does not motivate you
a) I am not a left winger. Assumption jumped to. I believe in free enterprise. Did you not note I ran my own business? I think you will find most businessmen are not motivated by money, but by success.
b) Do you not understand the tax system? The people who get the maximum benefit of the new threshold are those over it so someone on £150K gets the maximum benefit, someone on £20K none and someone in the middle of the new band some of it. So the £150K earners get the maximum benefit. It was for this reason that the tapering of PA on earners over £100k came in so as to mitigate this effect.
Not sure that second point is correct given that those earning over £110k progressively lose all of the personal allowances and those over £150K have none.
Jezziah is the reason why people like me don't just stay in the Labour Party but stay active and fight. We cannot let his kind of scum - and your words this morning demonstrate that you ARE reprehensible scum sir - destroy this party.
The absurd spin machine attack as propagated by him this morning only pushes the voters further away and with it the chances of a Labour government. And that's the betting tip of the morning - we will soon have a Tory party led by a man not fit for public office, a Labour party led by a man not fit for public office, a Brexit party led by a man not fit for public office. We have already seen that voting public are willing to switch as they see fit...
There must however be a tipping point where the party is irrevocably damaged and you'd be doing it and the country a favour by walking away?
Throwing the baby out with the vile anti-semitic, soviet enriched bathwater gives us a generation or two of Boris Johnsons as our PM. It is nonetheless an unpleasant dilemma to overcome.
Vote Lib Dem to hold the balance of power, or even more
Under our voting system, a lot depends on the geography of the change.
If the Labour vote declines broadly and the LibDem vote rises, the Tories will do very well at coming through the middle, until the point where the LibDems (using them as proxy for any other centre-left party that might emerge from Labour's turmoil) can secure a vote share lead over the Tories. The BXP might help here, depending on where it stands.
The leave/remain division does offer the prospect of a the LibDem upsurge focused on the areas that lead toward Remain in the Home Counties and university towns where the LDs are mostly best placed to overhaul the Tories, and going head to head with Labour in London, whilst making less of a dent in Labour's urban strongholds in the North and S Wales. This does however require Labour to hang onto most of its northern seats.
I will be surprised if the LibDems take a single seat from Labour in London at the GE.
(see what fun it is not to be blindly loyal to "your" party?)
I like that 'if'. Because, yes, it's not death and it's not taxes.
Point taken on blind loyalty - that is never good in politics - but I sense that I am more left than you are right (of centre) if you know what I mean.
What is the calculus of your seat as a matter of interest?
I've just noticed that she and Yaxley have more or less the same hair style. If they're going to stick it on a hairdressers style sample pic, I'd call it SS-Panzerdivision "Hitlerjugend", 1944.
b) Do you not understand the tax system? The people who get the maximum benefit of the new threshold are those over it so someone on £150K gets the maximum benefit, someone on £20K none and someone in the middle of the new band some of it. So the £150K earners get the maximum benefit. It was for this reason that the tapering of PA on earners over £100k came in so as to mitigate this effect.
Surely someone who is on £80k gets maximum benefit proportionally, which is how we measure taxes?
Someone on £150k may in nominal terms get the same benefit as someone on £80k but in proportional terms they get half the benefit? Or do you dispute the whole logic behind measuring taxes as percentage of income?
Don't disagree with that. Don't think I said anything different. Maybe should have worded better.
I've just noticed that she and Yaxley have more or the less the same hair style. If they're going to stick it on a hairdressers style sample pic, I'd call it SS-Panzerdivision "Hitlerjugend", 1944.
Richard Spence Alt-Right look. More sign of the Americanisation of UK.
Mr. Pete, I strongly suspect Boris will be a terrible PM.
That doesn't change the fact he's not far right, and therefore not the atrocious equivalent of Corbyn.
If Boris wins the leadership but Labour ousts Corbyn and replaces him with someone boring but sane, it'd be interesting. But I'll believe the far left has had its grip prised from Labour when it happens.
Yes Corbyn is the personification of the SWP. However in order to achieve his ambition Johnson has jettisoned his 'one nation Tory' baggage; and please excuse the horrific vision, is now in bed with Farage and Trump.
On domestic policy Boris is still 'One nation' on the whole, promising more money for the NHS and police and tax cuts.
I'm not sure how "One Nation" it is to propose tax cuts for the not well off on more than twice average earnings....
It is a tax cut aimed at headmasters, GPs, police inspectors, small business owners, middle managers etc, not the top 1%
Why do these people need a tax cut? I put myself and my wife in these categories and I fail to see why we should get a tax cut. Also is this not just about where the top 1% income starts
Tax cuts are always nice but this is absolutely the wrong priority. Austerity was absolutely necessary in the face of the deficit but surely everyone can see that it has left a legacy of starved public services struggling to provide anything like the quality of service that we want. Social care, student debt, school education, public housing, policing, there is an almost intolerable pressure for more cash. And there is the small matter of debt reduction as well.
Boris is also promising more police, more money for the NHS etc.
Boris believes in the laffer curve and tax cuts can increase revenues, under Boris there will be an easing off of austerity and tax cuts, Boris is a Keynesian in many respects
.... headmasters, police inspectors, GPs. They are not revenue generators.
Until you consider the revenue benefits of educted adults, crime-free streets, and people made well enough to work...
I fit your category very well. HYUFD and the POTUS Bum Licker In Chief think they can happily ignore us, because they are only interested in appeasing the swivel-eyed
b) Do you not understand the tax system? The people who get the maximum benefit of the new threshold are those over it so someone on £150K gets the maximum benefit, someone on £20K none and someone in the middle of the new band some of it. So the £150K earners get the maximum benefit. It was for this reason that the tapering of PA on earners over £100k came in so as to mitigate this effect.
Surely someone who is on £80k gets maximum benefit proportionally, which is how we measure taxes?
Someone on £150k may in nominal terms get the same benefit as someone on £80k but in proportional terms they get half the benefit? Or do you dispute the whole logic behind measuring taxes as percentage of income?
I think the sentence is fair, the two years being banded about would clearly have been unreasonably long. Lennon's original trial was farcical and rightly quashed - but it is right he has received a custodial sentence (with due process being followed this time), the scumbags (Khaliq, Akhtar and others) on trial who now have long sentences could have got off with a mistrial.
Is he lowering the 45% threshold to stop the very rich benefitting, then?
No, arguably Boris is not helping the rich enough. To do that he should cut the 45% top income tax rate for those earning over £150 000 back to 40% but that is not his priority
You do understand that those over £150K get the maximum gain from the increase of the 40% band to £80K, but you would like to give them even more.
In answer to your other post re small business owners - I was one until recently and this change motivates me not one zilch.
They don't as they still have to pay the 45% rate on top which Boris is leaving in place.
If you get to keep more of what you earn of course it benefits you and may also motivate you to work more too, though as an ideological leftwinger of course you would say it does not motivate you
a) I am not a left winger. Assumption jumped to. I believe in free enterprise. Did you not note I ran my own business? I think you will find most businessmen are not motivated by money, but by success.
b) Do you not understand the tax system? The people who get the maximum benefit of the new threshold are those over it so someone on £150K gets the maximum benefit, someone on £20K none and someone in the middle of the new band some of it. So the £150K earners get the maximum benefit. It was for this reason that the tapering of PA on earners over £100k came in so as to mitigate this effect.
Not sure that second point is correct given that those earning over £110k progressively lose all of the personal allowances and those over £150K have none.
Agree. I meant they both get the same benefit of the increase in the new proposed 40% tax threshold to the same extent (or less if you are under £80K). Yes when you hit £100K you then lose PA in a ratio of 1:2 and then of course you eventually hit the 45% mark so marginal rates are different. I was comparing the single change being proposed in each circumstance.
I was trying to answer quickly and concisely, without getting into the complexity.
(see what fun it is not to be blindly loyal to "your" party?)
I like that 'if'. Because, yes, it's not death and it's not taxes.
Point taken on blind loyalty - that is never good in politics - but I sense that I am more left than you are right (of centre) if you know what I mean.
What is the calculus of your seat as a matter of interest?
It's a shocker. Went from super-marginal Lab/Con to very safe Lab (all Green went Lab, all UKIP went Cons). Lab 33k, Cons 19k, LD 3k in 2017.
It's super-remain so Cons will have lost many (not me) to Lab in the belief that of course Corbyn won't get in (as told to me on the doorstep) but that was last time as for next time?
I would say there are 5-10k "homeless" votes up for grabs, perhaps more if you include people like me who voted Cons but are rapidly becoming disillusioned with the twats taking over the party since Grey May.
So a huge ask for the LibDems but not out of the question. Lab lose 15k, Cons lose 5k, LD gain 18k = LD gain for the seat. Lab losing 15k? Perhaps not but not impossible.
Something crying out for Boris' organisational skills:
Britain has failed to make meaningful progress towards a free trade deal with the United States amid “chronic” staffing shortages and communication breakdowns in Whitehall, according to a cache of documents seen by The Telegraph.
Details of meetings spanning two years show how overstretched departments have been working “at cross purposes” as transatlantic talks have repeatedly stumbled over politically sensitive topics such as rules on health, farming and the finance industry.
Officials have begun to fear that American frustration with the lack of agreement or even partial agreement could end hopes of a post-Brexit partnership envisaged at the centre of a “global Britain” trade strategy.
Lord knows what the American Ambassador says about it.
But he should be sacked for saying it. According to some on here.....
I don't think people are saying that. What they are saying is that once it is public that he has said it his utility as ambassador is diminished. Its a rather different point.
Some, Tice, Farage and a few fanboys were arguing that Darroch had committed thought crime by even thinking those things (like all the other ambos in Washington).
When it comes to election time, will sane Labour types be campaigning for Corbyn to be PM?
Dont be silly. Of course they will. As corbyn himself proved you can be very opposed to the leadership (on some things at least)and still campaign under the banner to make the leader pm .
Mr. Pete, I strongly suspect Boris will be a terrible PM.
That doesn't change the fact he's not far right, and therefore not the atrocious equivalent of Corbyn.
If Boris wins the leadership but Labour ousts Corbyn and replaces him with someone boring but sane, it'd be interesting. But I'll believe the far left has had its grip prised from Labour when it happens.
Yes Corbyn is the personification of the SWP. However in order to achieve his ambition Johnson has jettisoned his 'one nation Tory' baggage; and please excuse the horrific vision, is now in bed with Farage and Trump.
On domestic policy Boris is still 'One nation' on the whole, promising more money for the NHS and police and tax cuts.
I'm not sure how "One Nation" it is to propose tax cuts for the not well off on more than twice average earnings....
It is a tax cut aimed at headmasters, GPs, police inspectors, small business owners, middle managers etc, not the top 1%
Why do these people need a tax cut? I put myself and my wife in these categories and I fail to see why we should get a tax cut. Also is this not just about where the top 1% income starts
Tax cuts are always nice but this is absolutely the wrong priority. Austerity was absolutely necessary in the face of the deficit but surely everyone can see that it has left a legacy of starved public services struggling to provide anything like the quality of service that we want. Social care, student debt, school education, public housing, policing, there is an almost intolerable pressure for more cash. And there is the small matter of debt reduction as well.
Boris is also promising more police, more money for the NHS etc.
Boris believes in the laffer curve and tax cuts can increase revenues, under Boris there will be an easing off of austerity and tax cuts, Boris is a Keynesian in many respects
.... headmasters, police inspectors, GPs. They are not revenue generators.
Until you consider the revenue benefits of educted adults, crime-free streets, and people made well enough to work...
That is very true. I meant of course from the point of view being touted that by giving them this tax cut it will make them more productive. It won't.
Shouldn't costs be charged to that muppet of a judge who didn't do things by the book?
That was my reaction. Yes, he broke the law - but the punishment for that should not also include the additional costs of the second trial - which the AG demanded because of the problems with the first.
Poorly-written article by three youngsters, but worth struggling through if you’re interested in the future of SLab, which admittedly is a very minority hobby.
‘How Scottish Labour is moving towards constitutional radicalism’ - The party has finally recognised that the country’s political and economic woes flow from the centralised and outmoded British state.
“In terms of devolution, there is a new recognition that Scotland needs more economic as well as political power, increasing the borrowing powers of the Scottish parliament... More importantly, there is now a clear sense that the basic structure of the UK has to change, with the House of Lords abolished and replaced with a Senate of the Regions and Nations, increasing the influence of Britain’s peripheralised areas over the direction of the state and ensuring a greater voice in debates over Britain’s wildly uneven economy. Leonard’s language of “breaking up the centralisation of power” and “sharing power” between nations, regions and communities suggested an even more radical reshaping of British sovereignty itself, dispersing it away from Westminster and across the whole country.”
I would like the HoL replaced by a Senate of Regions and Nations.
I would have each represented by Senators, appointed by devolved governments and county councils in proportion to population. Mostly I would expect these to be chosen from those who had served in elected office, though I would not restrict it to these.
This would give representation to neglected regions, and encourage high calibre applicants to local and devolved governments.
I would be very much in favour of that
Me too, but perhaps only for 1/3 of seats. For the rest I would have an independent committee appoint 1/3 from the political ranks, and another 1/3 from the “great and the good” from other walks of life.
In theory I like this idea but in practice I think it would be too convoluted and complex.
Well there’s a detailed thread about how this could work simply - and how you’d move progressively to this from where we are (778 members) - but it might be too niche even for PB.
I like the HoL, and I get annoyed at the idea of its abolition or its replacement by an elected body.
I think it can be made to work better and an entirely elected body is not the panacea sone think it is.
b) Do you not understand the tax system? The people who get the maximum benefit of the new threshold are those over it so someone on £150K gets the maximum benefit, someone on £20K none and someone in the middle of the new band some of it. So the £150K earners get the maximum benefit. It was for this reason that the tapering of PA on earners over £100k came in so as to mitigate this effect.
Surely someone who is on £80k gets maximum benefit proportionally, which is how we measure taxes?
Someone on £150k may in nominal terms get the same benefit as someone on £80k but in proportional terms they get half the benefit? Or do you dispute the whole logic behind measuring taxes as percentage of income?
Except they don't. They get no benefit at all.
I don't know if we are all talking at cross purposes or whether I am having complete brain failure, but someone on £150K does gain if the 40% threshold is raised. The total loss of PA is irrelevant.
Foreign ambassadors working in Washington have revealed they share similar views to British envoy Sir Kim Darroch, who described Donald Trump’s administration as “inept” and “dysfunctional” in leaked diplomatic cables.
“It could have been any of us,” one unnamed ambassador told the New York Times.
Asked if other members of the Washington diplomatic corps characterised the Trump White House as chaotic, former French Ambassador to the US Gérard Araud, who retired earlier this year, said: “Yes, yes, everyone does.
Mr. Pete, I strongly suspect Boris will be a terrible PM.
That doesn't change the fact he's not far right, and therefore not the atrocious equivalent of Corbyn.
If Boris wins the leadership but Labour ousts Corbyn and replaces him with someone boring but sane, it'd be interesting. But I'll believe the far left has had its grip prised from Labour when it happens.
Yes Corbyn is the personification of the SWP. However in order to achieve his ambition Johnson has jettisoned his 'one nation Tory' baggage; and please excuse the horrific vision, is now in bed with Farage and Trump.
On domestic policy Boris is still 'One nation' on the whole, promising more money for the NHS and police and tax cuts.
I'm not sure how "One Nation" it is to propose tax cuts for the not well off on more than twice average earnings....
It is a tax cut aimed at headmasters, GPs, police inspectors, small business owners, middle managers etc, not the top 1%
Why do these people need a tax cut? I put myself and my wife in these categories and I fail to see why we should get a tax cut. Also is this not just about where the top 1% income starts
Tax cuts are always nice but this is absolutely the wrong priority. Austerity was absolutely necessary in the face of the deficit but surely everyone can see that it has left a legacy of starved public services struggling to provide anything like the quality of service that we want. Social care, student debt, school education, public housing, policing, there is an almost intolerable pressure for more cash. And there is the small matter of debt reduction as well.
Boris is also promising more police, more money for the NHS etc.
Boris believes in the laffer curve and tax cuts can increase revenues, under Boris there will be an easing off of austerity and tax cuts, Boris is a Keynesian in many respects
.... headmasters, police inspectors, GPs. They are not revenue generators.
Until you consider the revenue benefits of educted adults, crime-free streets, and people made well enough to work...
That is very true. I meant of course from the point of view being touted that by giving them this tax cut it will make them more productive. It won't.
It's a shocker. Went from super-marginal Lab/Con to very safe Lab (all Green went Lab, all UKIP went Cons). Lab 33k, Cons 19k, LD 3k in 2017.
It's super-remain so Cons will have lost many (not me) to Lab in the belief that of course Corbyn won't get in (as told to me on the doorstep) but that was last time as for next time?
I would say there are 5-10k "homeless" votes up for grabs, perhaps more if you include people like me who voted Cons but are rapidly becoming disillusioned with the twats taking over the party since Grey May.
So a huge ask for the LibDems but not out of the question. Lab lose 15k, Cons lose 5k, LD gain 18k = LD gain for the seat. Lab losing 15k? Perhaps not but not impossible.
Interesting.
My seat used to be a thrilling 3 way marginal but it went massive for Labour last time.
I would say it is now safe but not quite. The Tories under Johnson are dead here but perhaps not the Lib Dems.
You cannot move for lefty remainers in this neck of the woods and if enough of them end up concluding that a Labour government would be more interested in liberating Palestine than in cancelling Brexit there could be a shock.
Mr. Pete, I strongly suspect Boris will be a terrible PM.
That doesn't change the fact he's not far right, and therefore not the atrocious equivalent of Corbyn.
If Boris wins the leadership but Labour ousts Corbyn and replaces him with someone boring but sane, it'd be interesting. But I'll believe the far left has had its grip prised from Labour when it happens.
Yes Corbyn is the personification of the SWP. However in order to achieve his ambition Johnson has jettisoned his 'one nation Tory' baggage; and please excuse the horrific vision, is now in bed with Farage and Trump.
On domestic policy Boris is still 'One nation' on the whole, promising more money for the NHS and police and tax cuts.
I'm not sure how "One Nation" it is to propose tax cuts for the not well off on more than twice average earnings....
It is a tax cut aimed at headmasters, GPs, police inspectors, small business owners, middle managers etc, not the top 1%
Why do these people need a tax cut? I put myself and my wife in these categories and I fail to see why we should get a tax cut. Also is this not just about where the top 1% income starts
Tax cuts are always nice but this is absolutely the wrong priority. Austerity was absolutely necessary in the face of the deficit but surely everyone can see that it has left a legacy of starved public services struggling to provide anything like the quality of service that we want. Social care, student debt, school education, public housing, policing, there is an almost intolerable pressure for more cash. And there is the small matter of debt reduction as well.
Boris is also promising more police, more money for the NHS etc.
Boris believes in the laffer curve and tax cuts can increase revenues, under Boris there will be an easing off of austerity and tax cuts, Boris is a Keynesian in many respects
.... headmasters, police inspectors, GPs. They are not revenue generators.
Until you consider the revenue benefits of educted adults, crime-free streets, and people made well enough to work...
That is very true. I meant of course from the point of view being touted that by giving them this tax cut it will make them more productive. It won't.
Mr. Pulpstar, a shame the Robinson trial got far more coverage than (after the restrictions were lifted) the rather more serious cases.
Robinson and the MSM are in a symbiotic relationship on this one. He tees it up and they bury it into the goal. He gets oodles of publicity, they get a villain on the right. The sentence will be a net positive for him financially undoubtedly too - keeps him in the media which is a far bigger win for him than a few months inside (He's long since been unemployable in a regular job).
Going back to my previous post, Assange is actually in far deeper shit - potentially years in a US supermax is not worth any amount of publicity.
Comments
I think that’s fractionally harsh.
Berlusconi is not in power now though Salvini is a coalition partner
You know what else has their own flags and anthems? The Commonwealth, the UN, NATO...
Top fact: the lyrics to the UN “hymn” were written by WH Auden...
The lowest earners have already been taken out of income tax altogether by the Coalition
Though who knows how he'll behave once indulged to the point of pm-ship.
https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/8039/scorecard/65047/england-vs-australia-1st-sf-prudential-world-cup-1975
In answer to your other post re small business owners - I was one until recently and this change motivates me not one zilch.
Britain has failed to make meaningful progress towards a free trade deal with the United States amid “chronic” staffing shortages and communication breakdowns in Whitehall, according to a cache of documents seen by The Telegraph.
Details of meetings spanning two years show how overstretched departments have been working “at cross purposes” as transatlantic talks have repeatedly stumbled over politically sensitive topics such as rules on health, farming and the finance industry.
Officials have begun to fear that American frustration with the lack of agreement or even partial agreement could end hopes of a post-Brexit partnership envisaged at the centre of a “global Britain” trade strategy.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/07/10/lack-progress-us-uk-trade-talks-laid-bare-cache-leaked-documents/
If you get to keep more of what you earn of course it benefits you and may also motivate you to work more too, though as an ideological leftwinger of course you would say it does not motivate you
As I presume you plan to do.
But to clean up your point and make it very sober and serious -
If a Labour government is not bad for Hampstead it is not doing what it ought to be doing.
(see what fun it is not to be blindly loyal to "your" party?)
https://twitter.com/George_Osborne/status/1149263977173651457
My money would be on Dominic Raab or Michael Gove.
b) Do you not understand the tax system? The people who get the maximum benefit of the new threshold are those over it so someone on £150K gets the maximum benefit, someone on £20K none and someone in the middle of the new band some of it. So the £150K earners get the maximum benefit. It was for this reason that the tapering of PA on earners over £100k came in so as to mitigate this effect.
No sign of Boris other than set piece crowd scenes with no questions.
Time was, the Tory party was the party of lower taxes, and wasn't afraid to make the case for them. They need that back.
https://twitter.com/BBCDomC/status/1149266243666501633
https://twitter.com/BBCDomC/status/1149266797255938048
Someone on £150k may in nominal terms get the same benefit as someone on £80k but in proportional terms they get half the benefit? Or do you dispute the whole logic behind measuring taxes as percentage of income?
https://twitter.com/mrjohnofarrell/status/1149268821909397505
Pathetic.
Point taken on blind loyalty - that is never good in politics - but I sense that I am more left than you are right (of centre) if you know what I mean.
What is the calculus of your seat as a matter of interest?
https://twitter.com/KTHopkins/status/1149226644277727232
I've just noticed that she and Yaxley have more or less the same hair style. If they're going to stick it on a hairdressers style sample pic, I'd call it SS-Panzerdivision "Hitlerjugend", 1944.
Why give a platform to racists?
What's the calculus in your seat?
I presume he's going to do a big fat 'nothing' about it however?
Lennon's original trial was farcical and rightly quashed - but it is right he has received a custodial sentence (with due process being followed this time), the scumbags (Khaliq, Akhtar and others) on trial who now have long sentences could have got off with a mistrial.
I was trying to answer quickly and concisely, without getting into the complexity.
Change UK might've flopped but at least some Labour MPs were willing to leave the far left behind.
It's super-remain so Cons will have lost many (not me) to Lab in the belief that of course Corbyn won't get in (as told to me on the doorstep) but that was last time as for next time?
I would say there are 5-10k "homeless" votes up for grabs, perhaps more if you include people like me who voted Cons but are rapidly becoming disillusioned with the twats taking over the party since Grey May.
So a huge ask for the LibDems but not out of the question. Lab lose 15k, Cons lose 5k, LD gain 18k = LD gain for the seat. Lab losing 15k? Perhaps not but not impossible.
As for George (pbuh) it was entirely consensual.
Although after watching season four of Billions I thought of doing a thread on Chuck Rhoades Jnr.
Though "Life's not fair, is it ?" would make a decent title for the next Tory manifesto.... and 'shallow end of the gene pool' hits the mark.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=th8lBCNRVKM
Bonus Gavin Williamson at the end there.
Hancock: Whatever today's bit of Boris bumlicking happens to be.
Fallon: Hold my beer.
https://twitter.com/timesredbox/status/1149261549598650368
We're probably doomed.
“It could have been any of us,” one unnamed ambassador told the New York Times.
Asked if other members of the Washington diplomatic corps characterised the Trump White House as chaotic, former French Ambassador to the US Gérard Araud, who retired earlier this year, said: “Yes, yes, everyone does.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/ambassadors-we-all-share-similar-views-on-donald-trump-to-sir-kim-darroch-a4187586.html
https://twitter.com/GlennBBC/status/1149009411257634816
My seat used to be a thrilling 3 way marginal but it went massive for Labour last time.
I would say it is now safe but not quite. The Tories under Johnson are dead here but perhaps not the Lib Dems.
You cannot move for lefty remainers in this neck of the woods and if enough of them end up concluding that a Labour government would be more interested in liberating Palestine than in cancelling Brexit there could be a shock.
Melvyn Bragg is one to keep an eye on.
The sentence will be a net positive for him financially undoubtedly too - keeps him in the media which is a far bigger win for him than a few months inside (He's long since been unemployable in a regular job).
Going back to my previous post, Assange is actually in far deeper shit - potentially years in a US supermax is not worth any amount of publicity.