Hearing suggestions that the Unite To Remain pact is now going to be announced later this week.
Farage should think very carefully about what this means. Maybe he does want to remain, after all.
Course he does. In the last few weeks, Farage has been Remains biggest asset of all.
Bit like Corbyn is Leaves greatest friend.
There was someone on here back in 2014 who said (re: Scottish referendum) that the morning after the vote, if YES had won, you'd probably have Salmond quietly say to himself, "What have I done?"
Farage is the same. He's long ago realised that he doesn't really want Brexit at all. He loses everything if we leave the EU. His job, his influence, his power.
I mean, who the hell wants to hear what Farage has to say if we leave the EU? He won't even get a gig on the speaking circuit. "And now ladies and gentlemen, I introduce Nigel Farage... who is here to talk about.... well, I don't know what."
He can tell his war stories to his Grandkids, no one else will want to know.
Very notable how many BXP supporters on Twitter are critical of Farage, and sometimes furious.
They've already lost 20 PPCs!
Chris Mason on the BBC's Electioncast was at tye Brexit Party PPC rally. Apparently when he said that the Boris Deal "wasn't really Brexit", there was a very muffled response. They all know that the Boris Deal fulfils the VoteLeave platform of control of immigration, laws and money. It also fulfils the extra demand of FTAs that emerged post-Brexit.
As things stand Farage is the single person most risking Brexit not happening.
Labour's going to........ change the IHT threshold to ~ £125k apparently o_O !
The Tories should be all over that. Massive vote loser if weaponised properly. Half the country lives in houses potentially worth more than £125k
How many of those vote Labour and live in seats Labour can win. Not many.
Well, just about all of London, and a fair chunk of Manchester, I'd say.
Most Londoners do not own their own homes. Those that do tend to already vote Tory or LD.
90% of Londoners either own their own homes or WANT to own their own homes, partly so they will have something to hand on to their kids.
Labour don't get this. They see it as selfish. They have never understood aspiration, and of those few that do understand it, they despise it.
Apart from the Milibands, of course, whose Marxist father made special arrangements to avoid IHT, so he could hand on his house to his kids.
Aspiration works if you have a fair game, if you rig the system eventually those you exclude will look for new solutions such as this one.
Its not about aspiration its about hitting perceived enemies.
It will of course mean less money to spend on things like oh, hospitals and schools but that seems secondary to Labour right now.
We havusly. It is not about waiting until your 50s and 60s and receiving an inheritance.
And yet in m me anyway?
No-one is going to steal most of it. Less than half of it would be recycled into the economy to everyones benefit.
If there is more than one recipitent they would each get a £125k allowance under the proposed system from the summer.
"recycled into the economy" is a suitably sinister phrase.
As part of the Green New Deal, perhaps, when we die, Corbyn will oblige us to "recycle our corpses" into national compost heaps, producing energy for the socialist government offices in NuLondon, because we won't have the money for gas or oil
One person receives £100k inheritance for doing nothing Another person works 50 hours a week to earn £40k
Our system thinks we should tax the person earning £40k through hard work rather than the one getting £100k because their parents died.
Aspiration to me is about making a success of your career, rewarding those who take education and hard work seriously. It is not about waiting until your 50s and 60s and receiving an inheritance.
Inheritance tax is a tax on income that has already been taxed. The person earning 40k through hard work saves a little all through his life then passes it on to his kids so they have a better life.
Labour's inheritance tax proposals could easily be 2019's dementia tax.
Nobody likes inheritance tax. It is anathema to our basic human nature, which is to provide for our offspring. Most people are happier to endure a tax on themselves (their income) than on their kids (their inheritance).
If the Tories know what's good for them they will exploit this to the full.
I agree people generally dislike inheritance tax.
I have to say, I don't see why. No tax is fun, but an inheritance is a wholly unearned windfall to the recipient. Nice to have, but that's it. It's not, like income tax, a tax on work or, like VAT on businesses adding value.
You say it's "already been taxed" but lots of things are taxed both on entering our possession and on leaving (we pay income and sales taxes).
Older people should be encouraged to use (or give away if they prefer) their accumulated wealth in life. If they don't, that's sad for them... but why do we compensate via a windfall to their kids?
Winchester and Sutton & Cheam look like the realistic LD Tory targets on these numbers. Guildford out of reach.
They are trying in Sutton and Cheam but they have a problem here in Sutton as it was the only borough in London where the lib dems went backwards at the locals last year.
On the Sutton and Cheam side of the borough there are now far more Tory councillors than Lib Dem and they have also parachuted in a candidadte from Merton which wont go down well . They still may do it of course but a more difficult task in an area that voted leave anyway.
Whatever happened to the poster on here who was Tory candidate for that seat. exRAF I think- Rick Willis ?
If you don’t know google Richard Willis former reading borough councillor
One person receives £100k inheritance for doing nothing Another person works 50 hours a week to earn £40k
Our system thinks we should tax the person earning £40k through hard work rather than the one getting £100k because their parents died.
Aspiration to me is about making a success of your career, rewarding those who take education and hard work seriously. It is not about waiting until your 50s and 60s and receiving an inheritance.
Inheritance tax is a tax on income that has already been taxed. The person earning 40k through hard work saves a little all through his life then passes it on to his kids so they have a better life.
Labour's inheritance tax proposals could easily be 2019's dementia tax.
Nobody likes inheritance tax. It is anathema to our basic human nature, which is to provide for our offspring. Most people are happier to endure a tax on themselves (their income) than on their kids (their inheritance).
If the Tories know what's good for them they will exploit this to the full.
I agree people generally dislike inheritance tax.
I have to say, I don't see why. No tax is fun, but an inheritance is a wholly unearned windfall to the recipient. Nice to have, but that's it. It's not, like income tax, a tax on work or, like VAT on businesses adding value.
You say it's "already been taxed" but lots of things are taxed both on entering our possession and on leaving (we pay income and sales taxes).
Older people should be encouraged to use (or give away if they prefer) their accumulated wealth in life. If they don't, that's sad for them... but why do we compensate via a windfall to their kids?
FFS. Yes IHT is a tax on work. It is a tax done on all the work that went in to buy the house - in 90% of cases a tax on work that was ALREADY taxed first time around.
Labour's going to........ change the IHT threshold to ~ £125k apparently o_O !
The Tories should be all over that. Massive vote loser if weaponised properly. Half the country lives in houses potentially worth more than £125k
How many of those vote Labour and live in seats Labour can win. Not many.
Well, just about all of London, and a fair chunk of Manchester, I'd say.
Most Londoners do not own their own homes. Those that do tend to already vote Tory or LD.
90% of Londoners either own their own homes or WANT to own their own homes, partly so they will have something to hand on to their kids.
Labour don't get this. They see it as selfish. They have never understood aspiration, and of those few that do understand it, they despise it.
Apart from the Milibands, of course, whose Marxist father made special arrangements to avoid IHT, so he could hand on his house to his kids.
Aspiration works if you have a fair game, if you rig the system eventually those you exclude will look for new solutions such as this one.
Its not about aspiration its about hitting perceived enemies.
It will of course mean less money to spend on things like oh, hospitals and schools but that seems secondary to Labour right now.
We havusly. It is not about waiting until your 50s and 60s and receiving an inheritance.
And yet in m me anyway?
No-one is going to steal most of it. Less than half of it would be recycled into the economy to everyones benefit.
If there is more than one recipitent they would each get a £125k allowance under the proposed system from the summer.
"recycled into the economy" is a suitably sinister phrase.
As part of the Green New Deal, perhaps, when we die, Corbyn will oblige us to "recycle our corpses" into national compost heaps, producing energy for the socialist government offices in NuLondon, because we won't have the money for gas or oil
Labour's going to........ change the IHT threshold to ~ £125k apparently o_O !
The Tories should be all over that. Massive vote loser if weaponised properly. Half the country lives in houses potentially worth more than £125k
How many of those vote Labour and live in seats Labour can win. Not many.
Well, just about all of London, and a fair chunk of Manchester, I'd say.
Most Londoners do not own their own homes. Those that do tend to already vote Tory or LD.
90% of Londoners either own their own homes or WANT to own their own homes, partly so they will have something to hand on to their kids.
Labour don't get this. They see it as selfish. They have never understood aspiration, and of those few that do understand it, they despise it.
Apart from the Milibands, of course, whose Marxist father made special arrangements to avoid IHT, so he could hand on his house to his kids.
I want to be a billionaire. I dont mind voting for taxation on billionaires.
I wont take lectures on aspiration from a Tory party, establishment or government who have reduced equality of opportunity, and given huge subsidies to rich elderly homeowners over the last decade at the expense of the working population.
Aspiration works if you have a fair game, if you rig the system eventually those you exclude will look for new solutions such as this one.
I don't really give a tinker's wank what you think, I'm just saying this is a terrible policy, in electoral terms, and I hope Labour adopt it for that reason
"This nature of this swing in private renters towards Labour was felt in English marginals.
Both the raw number and overall proportions of private renters are strongly correlated with falls in the Conservative vote. The number of private renters in an area correlates even more strongly than age to a fall in the Conservative vote."
Similar majority to Heidi allen next door. No obvious sign of a gain and was polled b4 the recent LD falls.
I was friends with Lucy at University, where she was President of the Union in term I ran the ball.
Worth noting that the LDs did rather less well in the local elections in SE Cambs than in neighbouring South Cambridgeshire.
SE Cambs is obviously a fair bit less remainy and should be a comfortable hold. South Cambs is toss of a coin stuff.
SE Cambs is something of a misnomer. It also includes parts of North Cambs including Ely! Not quite pure turnip Taliban country, but not far off. Lucy will survive, just!
I’ve not seen the report, but one outcome could be - for example - evidence of a criminal offence by someone
If so, then to publish that before the election would likely jeopardise the outcome of a prosecution
the 10 day period is in the minimum review time, not the maximum. The government has been quite busy over the last few days so may not have completed its review.
I’m sure that it’s politically convenient to sit on the report for a few days but are you really surprised about a politician doing something politically convenient? Likewise it’s entirely standard practice for the opposition to attack the “cover up”.
Rest assured if it really is as damming as you think it would be leaked. That is the way things work.
You really are trying a bit too hard to defend what appears to be the indefensible. Even Lord Anderson has found the government's explanation inexplicable. The Select Committee does not write reports containing evidence which could be used to prosecute individuals and if there were such evidence it would not be published in such a report.
This is a blatant attempt to kick the report into the long grass so that it may be not be seen for months and months. It follows on other attempts to stymie the work of this particular Committee and comes from a government which has established a pattern of seeking to avoid scrutiny. It is a worrying development which ought to be criticised not defended on spurious grounds.
As for your claim that we should not worry because it will be leaked, well, words fail me...... Really, @Charles: this is utter nonsense and you know it. Shame on you.
Hearing suggestions that the Unite To Remain pact is now going to be announced later this week.
Farage should think very carefully about what this means. Maybe he does want to remain, after all.
Course he does. In the last few weeks, Farage has been Remains biggest asset of all.
Bit like Corbyn is Leaves greatest friend.
There was someone on here back in 2014 who said (re: Scottish referendum) that the morning after the vote, if YES had won, you'd probably have Salmond quietly say to himself, "What have I done?"
Farage is the same. He's long ago realised that he doesn't really want Brexit at all. He loses everything if we leave the EU. His job, his influence, his power.
I mean, who the hell wants to hear what Farage has to say if we leave the EU? He won't even get a gig on the speaking circuit. "And now ladies and gentlemen, I introduce Nigel Farage... who is here to talk about.... well, I don't know what."
He can tell his war stories to his Grandkids, no one else will want to know.
Quite. Just look what happened in 2017 when everyone thought Brexit was done and dusted. Farage was invisible and UKIP got a derisory vote. He will thrive only while the UK remains in the EU.
Winchester and Sutton & Cheam look like the realistic LD Tory targets on these numbers. Guildford out of reach.
Guildford has 'local issues' which may bring it into reach. (Other PBers should be able to help us here; it's a while since I lived there.)
Gossip is that Anne Milton is planning to stand as an independent. That may well put the Lib Dems right into play.
I believe she is but will that not hurt the Lib Dems more? Plenty of remainy Tories might stick with her rather than switch directly.
I doubt it but I'm not local so others might have a more nuanced view. Everyone who votes LD or Anne Milton still doesn't vote Tory so every vote she can peel off will help.
I live in Guildford. I am not sure how Milton standing as an indie will play, but I suspect it will peel off more votes from the Conservatives than it will deter from moving to the LDs. However, the key to the LDs winning is to maximise Labour switchers (on the basis of Labour is a wasted vote in Guildford). There are a lot of 2017 Labour votes to squeeze. It is true Guildford has other issues; a local plan imposed by the Conservatives before they lost the council and which caused uproar in the (heavily Conservative) villages. And a list of scandals associated with the old Conservative regime which would have made T Dan Smith look palatable if they were not so funny.
Labour's going to........ change the IHT threshold to ~ £125k apparently o_O !
The Tories should be all over that. Massive vote loser if weaponised properly. Half the country lives in houses potentially worth more than £125k
How many of those vote Labour and live in seats Labour can win. Not many.
Well, just about all of London, and a fair chunk of Manchester, I'd say.
Most Londoners do not own their own homes. Those that do tend to already vote Tory or LD.
9 Apart from the Milibands, of course, whose Marxist father made special arrangements to avoid IHT, so he could hand on his house to his kids.
Aspiration works if you have a fair game, if you rig the system eventually those you exclude will look for new solutions such as this one.
Its not about aspiration its about hitting perceived enemies.
It will of course mean less money to spend on things like oh, hospitals and schools but that seems secondary to Labour right now.
We have to raise x billion of tax each year.
One person receives £100k inheritance for doing nothing Another person works 50 hours a week to earn £40k
Our system thinks we should tax the person earning £40k through hard work rather than the one getting £100k because their parents died.
Aspiration to me is about making a success of your career, rewarding those who take education and hard work seriously. It is not about waiting until your 50s and 60s and receiving an inheritance.
And yet in less than 3 years that person earning £40K a year will earned more than the value of that one off inheritance - which anyway may well have been split between more than one beneficiary.
And why should I work hard and save to try and get a better life for my kids if the Government is just going to steal most of it from me anyway?
No-one is going to steal most of it. Less than half of it would be recycled into the economy to everyones benefit.
If there is more than one recipitent they would each get a £125k allowance under the proposed system from the summer.
WTF? To avoid tax entirely you just need to share it between more people? Can't be right, surely.
No-one is going to steal most of it. Less than half of it would be recycled into the economy to everyones benefit.
If there is more than one recipitent they would each get a £125k allowance under the proposed system from the summer.
Does that mean, suppose you have an estate worth £125m and you choose 1,000 recipients who have not previously inherited anything, that you can give away all of your fortune to private individuals tax-free?
Consider the Queen. She has four children, eight grandchildren and eight great-grandchildren, to make 20 direct descendants. Thus she could give away £2.5m, tax-free, even if only considering her direct descendants. Much more than under the present system.
On the face of it this allows for more inheritance to escape tax, if it is spread more widely.
Anything that is grown has insects fragments, rat shit and lots of slug slime. Washing helps. Cooking helps more. 3mg/454g seems pretty clean to me.
Please do not wonder how much cow piss there is in milk.
None. A cow's urethra is on the back of the cow. The udder is underneath. The urine lands a metre or two behind the cow.
Besides, udders get cleaned before milking. As someone who has cleaned hundreds, if not thousands of udders, I speak from experience.
I think camel might be hoping for a job with Trump's FDA ?
I think he may have the qualifications required....
[Edit - I am still trying to get over that picture this morning of the exorcism in the Whitehouse and wondering why it did not work]
You both missed my point, but i probably made it badly.
I was calling out lies and some blatant scaremongering on the part of the Labour Party. It does not follow that I am pro-US. Quite the opposite. I often find the FDA to be too stringent, often weirdly so, and find that the EFSA and the FSA make being a successful FBO very achievable, whilst still maintaining very high standards of public safety and consumer protection.
As an aside, I have worked in milking parlours. Luckily, having enjoyed a few warm showers, they say cow piss is good for you. All robots now though.
Ranting on BBC news about not being included in ITV "Head to Head" with BJ & JC is NOT a good look. It's a GE - social & fiscal policies will be explored. You don't appear to have any Given that your record in Coalition is indicative - we'll take them as read.
Thanks
BJO
Always amazed how the party which, last time it was in power, launched two dodgy wars in the Middle East is so keen to point and laugh at others' record in Government.
One person receives £100k inheritance for doing nothing Another person works 50 hours a week to earn £40k
Our system thinks we should tax the person earning £40k through hard work rather than the one getting £100k because their parents died.
Aspiration to me is about making a success of your career, rewarding those who take education and hard work seriously. It is not about waiting until your 50s and 60s and receiving an inheritance.
Inheritance tax is a tax on income that has already been taxed. The person earning 40k through hard work saves a little all through his life then passes it on to his kids so they have a better life.
Labour's inheritance tax proposals could easily be 2019's dementia tax.
Nobody likes inheritance tax. It is anathema to our basic human nature, which is to provide for our offspring. Most people are happier to endure a tax on themselves (their income) than on their kids (their inheritance).
If the Tories know what's good for them they will exploit this to the full.
I agree people generally dislike inheritance tax.
I have to say, I don't see why. No tax is fun, but an inheritance is a wholly unearned windfall to the recipient. Nice to have, but that's it. It's not, like income tax, a tax on work or, like VAT on businesses adding value.
You say it's "already been taxed" but lots of things are taxed both on entering our possession and on leaving (we pay income and sales taxes).
Older people should be encouraged to use (or give away if they prefer) their accumulated wealth in life. If they don't, that's sad for them... but why do we compensate via a windfall to their kids?
Good points. Faced with a choice of paying more tax when alive or when dead, I choose dead.
Labour's going to........ change the IHT threshold to ~ £125k apparently o_O !
How many of those vote Labour and live in seats Labour can win. Not many.
Well, just about all of London, and a fair chunk of Manchester, I'd say.
Most Londoners do not own their own homes. Those that do tend to already vote Tory or LD.
9 Apart from the Milibands, of course, whose Marxist father made special arrangements to avoid IHT, so he could hand on his house to his kids.
Aspiration works if you have a fair game, if you rig the system eventually those you exclude will look for new solutions such as this one.
Its not about aspiration its about hitting perceived enemies.
It will of course mean less money to spend on things like oh, hospitals and schools but that seems secondary to Labour right now.
We have to raise x billion of tax each year.
One person receives £100k inheritance for doing nothing Another person works 50 hours a week to earn £40k
Our system thinks we should tax the person earning £40k through hard work rather than the one getting £100k because their parents died.
Aspiration to me is about making a success of your career, rewarding those who take education and hard work seriously. It is not about waiting until your 50s and 60s and receiving an inheritance.
And yet in less than 3 years that person earning £40K a year will earned more than the value of that one off inheritance - which anyway may well have been split between more than one beneficiary.
And why should I work hard and save to try and get a better life for my kids if the Government is just going to steal most of it from me anyway?
No-one is going to steal most of it. Less than half of it would be recycled into the economy to everyones benefit.
If there is more than one recipitent they would each get a £125k allowance under the proposed system from the summer.
WTF? To avoid tax entirely you just need to share it between more people? Can't be right, surely.
Yes if your objective is to avoid the tax you can share it amongst more people. The tax would be on recipients not estates. It is a fundamentally fairer way of tax than IHT.
Trying to simplify matters a 10% Con to Lib swing would only win the Lib Dems 13 seats from the Tories. At the moment I would say their gains from the blues will be limited to 15 (even with tactical voting) as they are so far behind in so many target seats. Even in 1997 the Con to Lab UNS was only 11% and clearly while the big uptick in Lib Dem vote since 17' will help there hasn't yet been a big downturn in the Tory numbers.
If Con losses are limited to sub 15 then they probably need to take 20 net seats off Labour in England for a majority (Wales gains cancelling Scottish losses). Those 20 gains can be taken on a 1.5% Lab to Tory swing which is surely achievable.
Ranting on BBC news about not being included in ITV "Head to Head" with BJ & JC is NOT a good look. It's a GE - social & fiscal policies will be explored. You don't appear to have any Given that your record in Coalition is indicative - we'll take them as read.
Thanks
BJO
Always amazed how the party which, last time it was in power, launched two dodgy wars in the Middle East is so keen to point and laugh at others' record in Government.
Although it is easy to understand that they do not want their leader put under the Brexit spotlight by Swinson. I believe Labour Brexit policy is known as 'the quantum policy' even within the party - because all possible policies exist simultaneously and a random one decoheres whenever they are forced to talk on the subject.
No-one is going to steal most of it. Less than half of it would be recycled into the economy to everyones benefit.
If there is more than one recipitent they would each get a £125k allowance under the proposed system from the summer.
WTF? To avoid tax entirely you just need to share it between more people? Can't be right, surely.
Yes if your objective is to avoid the tax you can share it amongst more people. The tax would be on recipients not estates. It is a fundamentally fairer way of tax than IHT.
So two families could share beneficiaries to effectively double their allowance.
And that wheeze took me 30 seconds to come up with. Labour are not good at this.
I would have thought Labour wouldn’t be stupid enough to mess with inheritance tax , given what they saw happen with Mays disastrous social care policy .
This would go down very badly especially in areas of the country with high property prices , and they will be hammered in London .
This would be like the dementia tax but even worse , it would sink their campaign .
Many of those more middle class Labour voters might be okay paying a bit more tax on their income but interfering with what they might leave the kids would be a huge own goal .
The proposal if it sees the light of day is to abolish IHT. Instead recipients of inheritance would be taxed. It would be an input into their income tax comp. It makes perfect sense on every level but I would be surprised to see it in the manifesto because it lends itself to misrepresentation of the "dementia tax" sort that could agitate "ordinary people".
You mean the sort of misrepresentation that Labour (and the Lib Dems) cynically indulged in during the 2017 campaign?
Against a policy that "made sense on every level", and grasped a long-overdue political nettle?
As opposed to taxing inheritance as income, which goes against the long-established principle of not taxing the same source of income twice?
Absolutely. It taxes the recipient on income received in broadly the same way as any other income. In particular those who receive an inheritance on top of already comfortable circumstances will pay more tax on it than those who are not in such a fortunate situation. It's also simple, harder to dodge than IHT and will raise more than IHT. There, that's 4 levels.
Yes if your objective is to avoid the tax you can share it amongst more people. The tax would be on recipients not estates. It is a fundamentally fairer way of tax than IHT.
Isn't it a lifetime effect though?
So lets say someone receives an inheritance from a grandparent that might be tax free. For the rest of their life though they can't get anything else tax free - from any other grandparents, or from parents themselves when they pass on.
Absolutely. It taxes the recipient on income received in broadly the same way as any other income. In particular those who receive an inheritance on top of already comfortable circumstances will pay more tax on it than those who are not in such a fortunate situation. It's also simple, harder to dodge than IHT and will raise more than IHT. There, that's 4 levels.
Maybe not the political level. It more than halves the nil-rate band.
No-one is going to steal most of it. Less than half of it would be recycled into the economy to everyones benefit.
If there is more than one recipitent they would each get a £125k allowance under the proposed system from the summer.
Does that mean, suppose you have an estate worth £125m and you choose 1,000 recipients who have not previously inherited anything, that you can give away all of your fortune to private individuals tax-free?
Consider the Queen. She has four children, eight grandchildren and eight great-grandchildren, to make 20 direct descendants. Thus she could give away £2.5m, tax-free, even if only considering her direct descendants. Much more than under the present system.
On the face of it this allows for more inheritance to escape tax, if it is spread more widely.
Whilst taxing the recipient rather than the estate seems fairer, as with any wealth tax, one might think it would be a a good idea to restrict it to families whom the public at large might consider wealthy. Clue: it's the few, not the many.
Probably a bad time to bring it out but Lord Ashcroft has some new polling on the US election:
Some problems for Trump and it seems that a lot of voters are getting fed up with the constant drama BUT not much enthusiasm for the democrat front runners:
Exactly the split the LDs would want. Makes inner Labour seats more vulnerable and SW London Conservative seats even more at risk.
Obviously Richmond is going yellow, but can they really win any other London seats from the Tories? Wimbledon is a 21% swing and they're in 3rd so will be very tough on those numbers.
Bermondsey and Vauxhall are strong chances of being gains from Labour and Luciana Berger and Chukka have a chance but that's 6 possible gains max IMO and only Richmond and Bermondsey are very likely.
Ah glad you dropped by. I was listening to the Great Laura on PL today. Her view wrt Lab's ludicrous position on Brexit, was that the country was divided and hence it was only sensible for the Labour Party to reflect that division by letting the public decide whether they wanted to leave the EU or not and that Labour should, rightly, not take a position on the matter.
Given the many paragraphs you eloquently set down yesterday telling us it was a political party's role to lead, not follow, no matter how unpopular the cause or policy was, how exactly do you square away La Pidcock's pronouncements?
The Brexit position is not ludicrous - not at all - but much as I like and rate Pidcock I think it is a stretch to say that reflecting the country's Brexit division is an actual strength of the policy. Point is, there is simply no other policy they could have adopted. Yes, you can lead - say Remain is the best option - but that Ref in 2016 did happen, you can't pretend it didn't, therefore the only practical way to overturn it is with another one. Being the Labour policy. They ARE for all practical purposes the true party of Remain. The only non-exotic route to Remain goes via PM Corbyn.
Labour's going to........ change the IHT threshold to ~ £125k apparently o_O !
The Tories should be all over that. Massive vote loser if weaponised properly. Half the country lives in houses potentially worth more than £125k
How many of those vote Labour and live in seats Labour can win. Not many.
Well, just about all of London, and a fair chunk of Manchester, I'd say.
Most Londoners do not own their own homes. Those that do tend to already vote Tory or LD.
90% of Londoners either own their own homes or WANT to own their own homes, partly so they will have something to hand on to their kids.
Labour don't get this. They see it as selfish. They have never understood aspiration, and of those few that do understand it, they despise it.
Apart from the Milibands, of course, whose Marxist father made special arrangements to avoid IHT, so he could hand on his house to his kids.
I want to be a billionaire. I dont mind voting for taxation on billionaires.
I wont take lectures on aspiration from a Tory party, establishment or government who have reduced equality of opportunity, and given huge subsidies to rich elderly homeowners over the last decade at the expense of the working population.
Aspiration works if you have a fair game, if you rig the system eventually those you exclude will look for new solutions such as this one.
I don't really give a tinker's wank what you think, I'm just saying this is a terrible policy, in electoral terms, and I hope Labour adopt it for that reason
"This nature of this swing in private renters towards Labour was felt in English marginals.
Both the raw number and overall proportions of private renters are strongly correlated with falls in the Conservative vote. The number of private renters in an area correlates even more strongly than age to a fall in the Conservative vote."
Ah glad you dropped by. I was listening to the Great Laura on PL today. Her view wrt Lab's ludicrous position on Brexit, was that the country was divided and hence it was only sensible for the Labour Party to reflect that division by letting the public decide whether they wanted to leave the EU or not and that Labour should, rightly, not take a position on the matter.
Given the many paragraphs you eloquently set down yesterday telling us it was a political party's role to lead, not follow, no matter how unpopular the cause or policy was, how exactly do you square away La Pidcock's pronouncements?
The Brexit position is not ludicrous - not at all - but much as I like and rate Pidcock I think it is a stretch to say that reflecting the country's Brexit division is an actual strength of the policy. Point is, there is simply no other policy they could have adopted. Yes, you can lead - say Remain is the best option - but that Ref in 2016 did happen, you can't pretend it didn't, therefore the only practical way to overturn it is with another one. Being the Labour policy. They ARE for all practical purposes the true party of Remain. The only non-exotic route to Remain goes via PM Corbyn.
The plan is to negotiate a deal, but then campaign against that deal. I think any normal person would find that ludicrous.
Ah glad you dropped by. I was listening to the Great Laura on PL today. Her view wrt Lab's ludicrous position on Brexit, was that the country was divided and hence it was only sensible for the Labour Party to reflect that division by letting the public decide whether they wanted to leave the EU or not and that Labour should, rightly, not take a position on the matter.
Given the many paragraphs you eloquently set down yesterday telling us it was a political party's role to lead, not follow, no matter how unpopular the cause or policy was, how exactly do you square away La Pidcock's pronouncements?
The Brexit position is not ludicrous - not at all - but much as I like and rate Pidcock I think it is a stretch to say that reflecting the country's Brexit division is an actual strength of the policy. Point is, there is simply no other policy they could have adopted. Yes, you can lead - say Remain is the best option - but that Ref in 2016 did happen, you can't pretend it didn't, therefore the only practical way to overturn it is with another one. Being the Labour policy. They ARE to all practical purposes the party of Remain. The only non exotic route to Remain goes via PM Corbyn.
The Brexit position is ludicrous because your party is neither for nor against it. You spent quite some time yesterday telling me how cowardly such an approach was. Whatever the details referendum this, practical that, your party, as indeed you were telling me only yesterday, should have a position. It doesn't. That is a failure. And ludicrous.
Exactly the split the LDs would want. Makes inner Labour seats more vulnerable and SW London Conservative seats even more at risk.
Obviously Richmond is going yellow, but can they really win any other London seats from the Tories? Wimbledon is a 21% swing and they're in 3rd so will be very tough on those numbers.
Bermondsey and Vauxhall are strong chances of being gains from Labour and Luciana Berger and Chukka have a chance but that's 6 possible gains max IMO and only Richmond and Bermondsey are very likely.
Wimbledon is my bellweather seat in SW London as Labour have gone AWOL, I agree it is unlikely, but this makes it possible. However the wider point is that I had regarded City and Kensington as probably out of reach; not now with a collapse in Labour to switch. It also puts Hornsey into play.
Jeremy Corbyn is not fit for job of PM,' Jo Swinson says
Launching the LibDem’s campaign, Ms Swinson, the party leader, said she was "absolutely categorically ruling out" Liberal Democrat votes putting Mr Corbyn into Number 10.
No-one is going to steal most of it. Less than half of it would be recycled into the economy to everyones benefit.
If there is more than one recipitent they would each get a £125k allowance under the proposed system from the summer.
WTF? To avoid tax entirely you just need to share it between more people? Can't be right, surely.
Yes if your objective is to avoid the tax you can share it amongst more people. The tax would be on recipients not estates. It is a fundamentally fairer way of tax than IHT.
So two families could share beneficiaries to effectively double their allowance.
And that wheeze took me 30 seconds to come up with. Labour are not good at this.
Requires a huge amount of trust. The two sets of parents could die decades apart. I don't trust many people enough to rely on their kids giving mine a few hundred grand of my money after I die.
Ah glad you dropped by. I was listening to the Great Laura on PL today. Her view wrt Lab's ludicrous position on Brexit, was that the country was divided and hence it was only sensible for the Labour Party to reflect that division by letting the public decide whether they wanted to leave the EU or not and that Labour should, rightly, not take a position on the matter.
Given the many paragraphs you eloquently set down yesterday telling us it was a political party's role to lead, not follow, no matter how unpopular the cause or policy was, how exactly do you square away La Pidcock's pronouncements?
The Brexit position is not ludicrous - not at all - but much as I like and rate Pidcock I think it is a stretch to say that reflecting the country's Brexit division is an actual strength of the policy. Point is, there is simply no other policy they could have adopted. Yes, you can lead - say Remain is the best option - but that Ref in 2016 did happen, you can't pretend it didn't, therefore the only practical way to overturn it is with another one. Being the Labour policy. They ARE for all practical purposes the true party of Remain. The only non-exotic route to Remain goes via PM Corbyn.
The plan is to negotiate a deal, but then campaign against that deal. I think any normal person would find that ludicrous.
Exactly the split the LDs would want. Makes inner Labour seats more vulnerable and SW London Conservative seats even more at risk.
Obviously Richmond is going yellow, but can they really win any other London seats from the Tories? Wimbledon is a 21% swing and they're in 3rd so will be very tough on those numbers.
Bermondsey and Vauxhall are strong chances of being gains from Labour and Luciana Berger and Chukka have a chance but that's 6 possible gains max IMO and only Richmond and Bermondsey are very likely.
Wimbledon is my bellweather seat in SW London as Labour have gone AWOL, I agree it is unlikely, but this makes it possible. However the wider point is that I had regarded City and Kensington as probably out of reach; not now with a collapse in Labour to switch. It also puts Hornsey into play.
LDs in London could win:
Richmond Park Kensington Cities of London & Westminster Finchley & Golders Green Putney Wimbledon Sutton & Cheam Hornsey & Wood Green (unlikely) Bermondsey & Old Southwark (unlikely) Hampstead & Kilburn (unlikely)
It's clearly a joke that has gone over your head. I traced back the rumour on Twitter and turns out it was started by a Leicestershire Labour councillor called Kirk Master and then jumped on and spread by some twitter person called James Melville.
As has been stated a thousand times if Boris loses Uxbridge to Labour he loses the election so no point him moving seats and screwing over the campaign.
IHT "already taxed" point. This is not a logical way to view the matter. For example, consider the following theoretical choice -
(1) Pay 20% tax on income and 30% tax on what you save out of it. (2) Pay 60% tax on income and 0% tax on what you save out of it.
How many will opt for (2) because in (1) they get "taxed twice" which is "unfair"?
It is fundamentally ignoring how complex the tax system is. Everything is taxed multiple times through a wide range of taxes that get repeated on a daily basis. A belief that things are taxed once is no better than believing the earth is flat.
I've always thought the most equitable solution to IHT would be to allow it as a one off pension pot payment. It then gets taxed in the normal way on drawdown etc.
This proposal is to some extent informed by that very sentiment.
Ah glad you dropped by. I was listening to the Great Laura on PL today. Her view wrt Lab's ludicrous position on Brexit, was that the country was divided and hence it was only sensible for the Labour Party to reflect that division by letting the public decide whether they wanted to leave the EU or not and that Labour should, rightly, not take a position on the matter.
Given the many paragraphs you eloquently set down yesterday telling us it was a political party's role to lead, not follow, no matter how unpopular the cause or policy was, how exactly do you square away La Pidcock's pronouncements?
The Brexit position is not ludicrous - not at all - but much as I like and rate Pidcock I think it is a stretch to say that reflecting the country's Brexit division is an actual strength of the policy. Point is, there is simply no other policy they could have adopted. Yes, you can lead - say Remain is the best option - but that Ref in 2016 did happen, you can't pretend it didn't, therefore the only practical way to overturn it is with another one. Being the Labour policy. They ARE for all practical purposes the true party of Remain. The only non-exotic route to Remain goes via PM Corbyn.
The Labour position is a joke
Watch Keir Starmer very recently trying to defend / explain it
Obviously Rutland & Melton is as safe as houses, but there's a cussed independent streak, particularly in Rutland, that might eat away at the majority a bit. Independent councillors have been in the ascendant on Rutland Council a few times. Were this to happen I doubt the chicken run would be warmly received.
IHT "already taxed" point. This is not a logical way to view the matter. For example, consider the following theoretical choice -
(1) Pay 20% tax on income and 30% tax on what you save out of it. (2) Pay 60% tax on income and 0% tax on what you save out of it.
How many will opt for (2) because in (1) they get "taxed twice" which is "unfair"?
Oh, ok then. How much of a reduction in the basic and higher rates of income tax do you think Labour should offer in exchange for the putative increases to IHT?
If you look at Labour's wild and crazy spending plans, they are utterly unaffordable, and pragmatically impossible: as soon as anything like them was tried, creditors would flee the UK, the £ would crash to 30 cents, and Britain would default. We'd be Venezuela without the oil money.
But there is one way you *could* do it (if you're a boggle-eyed socialist Utopian): completely reorder society. Nationalise pensions. Nationalise big houses. Make all capital transfers taxable. Raid every purse and wallet in the country.
Then you'd have enormous sums to play with, and your plan becomes do-able.
Of course, in my mind, this would crash the country in a different way, and lead to plague and famine, but this may be what Labour are intent on doing, and we can see the shadows of it at work, now.
So ... tell me how Clem Attlee achieved ~2x as much in one parliamentary term when the UK was near-bankrupt and how Harold Macmillan built houses for rent at a rate not achieved since. Ken Clarke said clearly on AQ that he favours a 'Scandinavian-style welfare state' as long as it's competently-run.
Ah glad you dropped by. I was listening to the Great Laura on PL today. Her view wrt Lab's ludicrous position on Brexit, was that the country was divided and hence it was only sensible for the Labour Party to reflect that division by letting the public decide whether they wanted to leave the EU or not and that Labour should, rightly, not take a position on the matter.
Given the many paragraphs you eloquently set down yesterday telling us it was a political party's role to lead, not follow, no matter how unpopular the cause or policy was, how exactly do you square away La Pidcock's pronouncements?
The Brexit position is not ludicrous - not at all - but much as I like and rate Pidcock I think it is a stretch to say that reflecting the country's Brexit division is an actual strength of the policy. Point is, there is simply no other policy they could have adopted. Yes, you can lead - say Remain is the best option - but that Ref in 2016 did happen, you can't pretend it didn't, therefore the only practical way to overturn it is with another one. Being the Labour policy. They ARE to all practical purposes the party of Remain. The only non exotic route to Remain goes via PM Corbyn.
The Brexit position is ludicrous because your party is neither for nor against it. You spent quite some time yesterday telling me how cowardly such an approach was. Whatever the details referendum this, practical that, your party, as indeed you were telling me only yesterday, should have a position. It doesn't. That is a failure. And ludicrous.
It's a triangulated position that relies on enough electors taking an infra view on brexit but taking an ultra view on domestic policy.
We know how many people voted each way in a binary referendum, but we don't really know how many people would die in a ditch to follow through on their 2016 vote.
No-one is going to steal most of it. Less than half of it would be recycled into the economy to everyones benefit.
If there is more than one recipitent they would each get a £125k allowance under the proposed system from the summer.
WTF? To avoid tax entirely you just need to share it between more people? Can't be right, surely.
Yes if your objective is to avoid the tax you can share it amongst more people. The tax would be on recipients not estates. It is a fundamentally fairer way of tax than IHT.
So two families could share beneficiaries to effectively double their allowance.
And that wheeze took me 30 seconds to come up with. Labour are not good at this.
Requires a huge amount of trust. The two sets of parents could die decades apart. I don't trust many people enough to rely on their kids giving mine a few hundred grand of my money after I die.
Presumably also when the money is transferred from fake recipient to intended recipient it should be declared as a gift and taxed.
Announcing this policy in election time would be courageous. But we need something like it. Setting the gift level a bit higher however might turn it into a wedge issue, showing the Tories are on the side of the mega wealthy.
I wonder whether "Tories say you shouldn't be taxed on gifts of £1m" will play quite as well?
It's clearly a joke that has gone over your head. I traced back the rumour on Twitter and turns out it was started by a Leicestershire Labour councillor called Kirk Master and then jumped on and spread by some twitter person called James Melville.
As has been stated a thousand times if Boris loses Uxbridge to Labour he loses the election so no point him moving seats and screwing over the campaign.
Yes I should have read it more closely. We shall see. He would comfortably hold the seat if he does stand in Uxbridge but I think he will switch.
If you look at Labour's wild and crazy spending plans, they are utterly unaffordable, and pragmatically impossible: as soon as anything like them was tried, creditors would flee the UK, the £ would crash to 30 cents, and Britain would default. We'd be Venezuela without the oil money.
But there is one way you *could* do it (if you're a boggle-eyed socialist Utopian): completely reorder society. Nationalise pensions. Nationalise big houses. Make all capital transfers taxable. Raid every purse and wallet in the country.
Then you'd have enormous sums to play with, and your plan becomes do-able.
Of course, in my mind, this would crash the country in a different way, and lead to plague and famine, but this may be what Labour are intent on doing, and we can see the shadows of it at work, now.
So ... tell me how Clem Attlee achieved ~2x as much in one parliamentary term when the UK was near-bankrupt and how Harold Macmillan built houses for rent at a rate not achieved since. Ken Clarke said clearly on AQ that he favours a 'Scandinavian-style welfare state' as long as it's competently-run.
Ken Clarke speaks more sense than the rest our politicians put together.
Ah glad you dropped by. I was listening to the Great Laura on PL today. Her view wrt Lab's ludicrous position on Brexit, was that the country was divided and hence it was only sensible for the Labour Party to reflect that division by letting the public decide whether they wanted to leave the EU or not and that Labour should, rightly, not take a position on the matter.
Given the many paragraphs you eloquently set down yesterday telling us it was a political party's role to lead, not follow, no matter how unpopular the cause or policy was, how exactly do you square away La Pidcock's pronouncements?
The Brexit position is not ludicrous - not at all - but much as I like and rate Pidcock I think it is a stretch to say that reflecting the country's Brexit division is an actual strength of the policy. Point is, there is simply no other policy they could have adopted. Yes, you can lead - say Remain is the best option - but that Ref in 2016 did happen, you can't pretend it didn't, therefore the only practical way to overturn it is with another one. Being the Labour policy. They ARE to all practical purposes the party of Remain. The only non exotic route to Remain goes via PM Corbyn.
The Brexit position is ludicrous because your party is neither for nor against it. You spent quite some time yesterday telling me how cowardly such an approach was. Whatever the details referendum this, practical that, your party, as indeed you were telling me only yesterday, should have a position. It doesn't. That is a failure. And ludicrous.
It's a triangulated position that relies on enough electors taking an infra view on brexit but taking an ultra view on domestic policy.
We know how many people voted each way in a binary referendum, but we don't really know how many people would die in a ditch to follow through on their 2016 vote.
Yes that is true. As I, for example, am finding out about party loyalty vs my Brexit position. Having examined my soul, I realise that I would rather have Boris' Cons than Corbyn's Lab in power. And I will work towards that end.
Ah glad you dropped by. I was listening to the Great Laura on PL today. Her view wrt Lab's ludicrous position on Brexit, was that the country was divided and hence it was only sensible for the Labour Party to reflect that division by letting the public decide whether they wanted to leave the EU or not and that Labour should, rightly, not take a position on the matter.
Given the many paragraphs you eloquently set down yesterday telling us it was a political party's role to lead, not follow, no matter how unpopular the cause or policy was, how exactly do you square away La Pidcock's pronouncements?
The Brexit position is not ludicrous - not at all - but much as I like and rate Pidcock I think it is a stretch to say that reflecting the country's Brexit division is an actual strength of the policy. Point is, there is simply no other policy they could have adopted. Yes, you can lead - say Remain is the best option - but that Ref in 2016 did happen, you can't pretend it didn't, therefore the only practical way to overturn it is with another one. Being the Labour policy. They ARE to all practical purposes the party of Remain. The only non exotic route to Remain goes via PM Corbyn.
The Brexit position is ludicrous because your party is neither for nor against it. You spent quite some time yesterday telling me how cowardly such an approach was. Whatever the details referendum this, practical that, your party, as indeed you were telling me only yesterday, should have a position. It doesn't. That is a failure. And ludicrous.
It's a triangulated position that relies on enough electors taking an infra view on brexit but taking an ultra view on domestic policy.
We know how many people voted each way in a binary referendum, but we don't really know how many people would die in a ditch to follow through on their 2016 vote.
Yes that is true. As I, for example, am finding out about party loyalty vs my Brexit position. Having examined my soul, I realise that I would rather have Boris' Cons than Corbyn's Lab in power. And I will work towards that end.
Rich people leave their money to their children. Poor people leave their children nothing. The more you tax inheritances, the less goes to the undeserving rich (who've already had their parents buy them an education and a fair wallop of intra-vivos gifts while they were alive).
The lack of progress by the Labour party in taxing inherited wealth out of existence is yet another example of how, behind its populist mask, the Corbyn and Milne-run ramp is just a bunch of poshos wanting to keep their nest well-feathered.
Exactly the split the LDs would want. Makes inner Labour seats more vulnerable and SW London Conservative seats even more at risk.
Obviously Richmond is going yellow, but can they really win any other London seats from the Tories? Wimbledon is a 21% swing and they're in 3rd so will be very tough on those numbers.
Bermondsey and Vauxhall are strong chances of being gains from Labour and Luciana Berger and Chukka have a chance but that's 6 possible gains max IMO and only Richmond and Bermondsey are very likely.
Wimbledon is my bellweather seat in SW London as Labour have gone AWOL, I agree it is unlikely, but this makes it possible. However the wider point is that I had regarded City and Kensington as probably out of reach; not now with a collapse in Labour to switch. It also puts Hornsey into play.
LDs in London could win:
Richmond Park Kensington Cities of London & Westminster Finchley & Golders Green Putney Wimbledon Sutton & Cheam Hornsey & Wood Green (unlikely) Bermondsey & Old Southwark (unlikely) Hampstead & Kilburn (unlikely)
I'll be doing a piece on the Lib Dems at some point, but I'd have thought that they can reasonably hope to be in the mix for:
Richmond Park Bermondsey & Old Southwark Sutton & Cheam Finchley & Golders Green Putney Hornsey & Wood Green Wimbledon Vauxhall Cities of London & Westminster Kensington Islington South & Finsbury Hampstead & Kilburn Chelsea & Fulham
I rate these in decreasing order of likelihood. Four looks like the outside best to me on this list, unless something unlikely happens.
Ah glad you dropped by. I was listening to the Great Laura on PL today. Her view wrt Lab's ludicrous position on Brexit, was that the country was divided and hence it was only sensible for the Labour Party to reflect that division by letting the public decide whether they wanted to leave the EU or not and that Labour should, rightly, not take a position on the matter.
Given the many paragraphs you eloquently set down yesterday telling us it was a political party's role to lead, not follow, no matter how unpopular the cause or policy was, how exactly do you square away La Pidcock's pronouncements?
The Brexit position is not ludicrous - not at all - but much as I like and rate Pidcock I think it is a stretch to say that reflecting the country's Brexit division is an actual strength of the policy. Point is, there is simply no other policy they could have adopted. Yes, you can lead - say Remain is the best option - but that Ref in 2016 did happen, you can't pretend it didn't, therefore the only practical way to overturn it is with another one. Being the Labour policy. They ARE to all practical purposes the party of Remain. The only non exotic route to Remain goes via PM Corbyn.
The Brexit position is ludicrous because your party is neither for nor against it. You spent quite some time yesterday telling me how cowardly such an approach was. Whatever the details referendum this, practical that, your party, as indeed you were telling me only yesterday, should have a position. It doesn't. That is a failure. And ludicrous.
It's a triangulated position that relies on enough electors taking an infra view on brexit but taking an ultra view on domestic policy.
We know how many people voted each way in a binary referendum, but we don't really know how many people would die in a ditch to follow through on their 2016 vote.
Yes that is true. As I, for example, am finding out about party loyalty vs my Brexit position. Having examined my soul, I realise that I would rather have Boris' Cons than Corbyn's Lab in power. And I will work towards that end.
You can never get rid of the blue taint.
Whereas the Conservative Party as currently constituted is doing its best to shed its postwar legacy. But Jezza is the gift that keeps giving to them.
Exactly the split the LDs would want. Makes inner Labour seats more vulnerable and SW London Conservative seats even more at risk.
Obviously Richmond is going yellow, but can they really win any other London seats from the Tories? Wimbledon is a 21% swing and they're in 3rd so will be very tough on those numbers.
Bermondsey and Vauxhall are strong chances of being gains from Labour and Luciana Berger and Chukka have a chance but that's 6 possible gains max IMO and only Richmond and Bermondsey are very likely.
Wimbledon is my bellweather seat in SW London as Labour have gone AWOL, I agree it is unlikely, but this makes it possible. However the wider point is that I had regarded City and Kensington as probably out of reach; not now with a collapse in Labour to switch. It also puts Hornsey into play.
LDs in London could win:
Richmond Park Kensington Cities of London & Westminster Finchley & Golders Green Putney Wimbledon Sutton & Cheam Hornsey & Wood Green (unlikely) Bermondsey & Old Southwark (unlikely) Hampstead & Kilburn (unlikely)
Yes, I have H&K on my unlikely but not impossible list. It has a lot of Remainy Tories who might vote tactically to remove a Labour MP (even though she is a Remainer and no Corbynite.)
It is fundamentally ignoring how complex the tax system is. Everything is taxed multiple times through a wide range of taxes that get repeated on a daily basis. A belief that things are taxed once is no better than believing the earth is flat.
It is softhead but nevertheless potent. I've heard it - "the money has already been taxed" - many many times. What logically ought to matter to people is how much tax they pay in aggregate and how it is spent but there's no doubt that IHT is particularly hated and this includes by people who will never be subject to it.
"You work hard all your life, pay your taxes, and then on your deathbed here comes the government for another slice."
The easy option, since IHT does not raise much, would be to abolish it. Which this (potential) Labour policy would, ironically, but I fear its replacement - the LGT - would not find favour with the typical voter.
On topic, and generally: With lots of MPs standing down and some switching parties, we need to pay even more attention than usual to the profiles of the candidates standing. This is especially so because of the Brexit divide.
Alastair mentions Cities of London and Westminster, where Mark Field is standing down and Chuka Umunna has been carpet-bombing innocent residents with leaflets, bar-charts and spurious questionnaires. He has certainly raised the LibDem profile here. (They were a poor third in 2017, but he says only the LibDems can beat the Tories here)
I've been holding off betting on this constituency because I wanted to see who the Conservatives selected in this very strongly Remain voting seat. The chosen candidate is Nickie Aiken, Leader of Westminster City Council, and a moderate Remainer at the referendum. She looks a really excellent choice for this constituency, making the Evens or better you can get on a Tory hold a good bet IMHO .
No-one is going to steal most of it. Less than half of it would be recycled into the economy to everyones benefit.
If there is more than one recipitent they would each get a £125k allowance under the proposed system from the summer.
WTF? To avoid tax entirely you just need to share it between more people? Can't be right, surely.
Yes if your objective is to avoid the tax you can share it amongst more people. The tax would be on recipients not estates. It is a fundamentally fairer way of tax than IHT.
So two families could share beneficiaries to effectively double their allowance.
And that wheeze took me 30 seconds to come up with. Labour are not good at this.
I think, though I'm not sure, that the allowance for recipients might be intended to be a lifetime allowance. So your wheeze doesn't work, because once all the recipients are maxed out from the first death they're then taxed at full whack for all their subsequent inheritances.
It only works if you have poorer relations you are prepared to spread your estate around, or if you have a larger than average family.
Ah glad you dropped by. I was listening to the Great Laura on PL today. Her view wrt Lab's ludicrous position on Brexit, was that the country was divided and hence it was only sensible for the Labour Party to reflect that division by letting the public decide whether they wanted to leave the EU or not and that Labour should, rightly, not take a position on the matter.
Given the many paragraphs you eloquently set down yesterday telling us it was a political party's role to lead, not follow, no matter how unpopular the cause or policy was, how exactly do you square away La Pidcock's pronouncements?
The Brexit position is not ludicrous - not at all - but much as I like and rate Pidcock I think it is a stretch to say that reflecting the country's Brexit division is an actual strength of the policy. Point is, there is simply no other policy they could have adopted. Yes, you can lead - say Remain is the best option - but that Ref in 2016 did happen, you can't pretend it didn't, therefore the only practical way to overturn it is with another one. Being the Labour policy. They ARE to all practical purposes the party of Remain. The only non exotic route to Remain goes via PM Corbyn.
The Brexit position is ludicrous because your party is neither for nor against it. You spent quite some time yesterday telling me how cowardly such an approach was. Whatever the details referendum this, practical that, your party, as indeed you were telling me only yesterday, should have a position. It doesn't. That is a failure. And ludicrous.
It's a triangulated position that relies on enough electors taking an infra view on brexit but taking an ultra view on domestic policy.
We know how many people voted each way in a binary referendum, but we don't really know how many people would die in a ditch to follow through on their 2016 vote.
Yes that is true. As I, for example, am finding out about party loyalty vs my Brexit position. Having examined my soul, I realise that I would rather have Boris' Cons than Corbyn's Lab in power. And I will work towards that end.
You can never get rid of the blue taint.
You won't have Corbyn's Lab in power. The 'good' polls for him point to a Lab/LD/SNP/PC C&S pact.
It is fundamentally ignoring how complex the tax system is. Everything is taxed multiple times through a wide range of taxes that get repeated on a daily basis. A belief that things are taxed once is no better than believing the earth is flat.
It is softhead but nevertheless potent. I've heard it - "the money has already been taxed" - many many times. What logically ought to matter to people is how much tax they pay in aggregate and how it is spent but there's no doubt that IHT is particularly hated and this includes by people who will never be subject to it.
"You work hard all your life, pay your taxes, and then on your deathbed here comes the government for another slice."
The easy option, since IHT does not raise much, would be to abolish it. Which this (potential) Labour policy would, ironically, but I fear its replacement - the LGT - would not find favour with the typical voter.
Yes, that is exactly so. In the long run, tax and expenditure must tally so to complain about the level of taxation is the same as complaining about the level of State spending. No reason why one should not, but then if you want to cut taxation you really have to say which spending you will cut to balance the books.
IHT makes a trivial contribution to the tax take. In my days in the biz, it was always regarded as the most avoidable of taxes. The convential wisdom was that it was only paid by the poorly advised, the lazy and the unlucky.
Ah glad you dropped by. I was listening to the Great Laura on PL today. Her view wrt Lab's ludicrous position on Brexit, was that the country was divided and hence it was only sensible for the Labour Party to reflect that division by letting the public decide whether they wanted to leave the EU or not and that Labour should, rightly, not take a position on the matter.
Given the many paragraphs you eloquently set down yesterday telling us it was a political party's role to lead, not follow, no matter how unpopular the cause or policy was, how exactly do you square away La Pidcock's pronouncements?
The Brexit position is not ludicrous - not at all - but much as I like and rate Pidcock I think it is a stretch to say that reflecting the country's Brexit division is an actual strength of the policy. Point is, there is simply no other policy they could have adopted. Yes, you can lead - say Remain is the best option - but that Ref in 2016 did happen, you can't pretend it didn't, therefore the only practical way to overturn it is with another one. Being the Labour policy. They ARE to all practical purposes the party of Remain. The only non exotic route to Remain goes via PM Corbyn.
The Brexit position is ludicrous because your party is neither for nor against it. You spent quite some time yesterday telling me how cowardly such an approach was. Whatever the details referendum this, practical that, your party, as indeed you were telling me only yesterday, should have a position. It doesn't. That is a failure. And ludicrous.
It's a triangulated position that relies on enough electors taking an infra view on brexit but taking an ultra view on domestic policy.
We know how many people voted each way in a binary referendum, but we don't really know how many people would die in a ditch to follow through on their 2016 vote.
Yes that is true. As I, for example, am finding out about party loyalty vs my Brexit position. Having examined my soul, I realise that I would rather have Boris' Cons than Corbyn's Lab in power. And I will work towards that end.
It is fundamentally ignoring how complex the tax system is. Everything is taxed multiple times through a wide range of taxes that get repeated on a daily basis. A belief that things are taxed once is no better than believing the earth is flat.
It is softhead but nevertheless potent. I've heard it - "the money has already been taxed" - many many times. What logically ought to matter to people is how much tax they pay in aggregate and how it is spent but there's no doubt that IHT is particularly hated and this includes by people who will never be subject to it.
"You work hard all your life, pay your taxes, and then on your deathbed here comes the government for another slice."
The easy option, since IHT does not raise much, would be to abolish it. Which this (potential) Labour policy would, ironically, but I fear its replacement - the LGT - would not find favour with the typical voter.
I agree it wont be popular with the typical voter. However, if we had the proposed system in place I am not at all sure there would be a clamour for the current system of IHT to take its place. Voters dont like changing complex things they dont fully understand.
Surprised the Tories are improving more in the middle. Perhaps up from a lower base?
That is very surprising. Why would the Tories be improving in the central area?
Tories general position in London v Labour improving v 2017 - but outer London becoming more like inner London so the demographic advantage disappearing?
Pengelly looks like toast in South Belfast with BOTH Sinn Fein (Whose voters will surely go to the SDLP) and the Greens (Who have endorsed the SDLP) standing aside there.
Ah glad you dropped by. I was listening to the Great Laura on PL today. Her view wrt Lab's ludicrous position on Brexit, was that the country was divided and hence it was only sensible for the Labour Party to reflect that division by letting the public decide whether they wanted to leave the EU or not and that Labour should, rightly, not take a position on the matter.
Given the many paragraphs you eloquently set down yesterday telling us it was a political party's role to lead, not follow, no matter how unpopular the cause or policy was, how exactly do you square away La Pidcock's pronouncements?
The Brexit position is not ludicrous - not at all - but much as I like and rate Pidcock I think it is a stretch to say that reflecting the country's Brexit division is an actual strength of the policy. Point is, there is simply no other policy they could have adopted. Yes, you can lead - say Remain is the best option - but that Ref in 2016 did happen, you can't pretend it didn't, therefore the only practical way to overturn it is with another one. Being the Labour policy. They ARE to all practical purposes the party of Remain. The only non exotic route to Remain goes via PM Corbyn.
The Brexit position is ludicrous because your party is neither for nor against it. You spent quite some time yesterday telling me how cowardly such an approach was. Whatever the details referendum this, practical that, your party, as indeed you were telling me only yesterday, should have a position. It doesn't. That is a failure. And ludicrous.
It's a triangulated position that relies on enough electors taking an infra view on brexit but taking an ultra view on domestic policy.
We know how many people voted each way in a binary referendum, but we don't really know how many people would die in a ditch to follow through on their 2016 vote.
Yes that is true. As I, for example, am finding out about party loyalty vs my Brexit position. Having examined my soul, I realise that I would rather have Boris' Cons than Corbyn's Lab in power. And I will work towards that end.
No-one is going to steal most of it. Less than half of it would be recycled into the economy to everyones benefit.
If there is more than one recipitent they would each get a £125k allowance under the proposed system from the summer.
WTF? To avoid tax entirely you just need to share it between more people? Can't be right, surely.
Yes if your objective is to avoid the tax you can share it amongst more people. The tax would be on recipients not estates. It is a fundamentally fairer way of tax than IHT.
So two families could share beneficiaries to effectively double their allowance.
And that wheeze took me 30 seconds to come up with. Labour are not good at this.
I think, though I'm not sure, that the allowance for recipients might be intended to be a lifetime allowance. So your wheeze doesn't work, because once all the recipients are maxed out from the first death they're then taxed at full whack for all their subsequent inheritances.
It only works if you have poorer relations you are prepared to spread your estate around, or if you have a larger than average family.
Encouraging spreading your money around poorer beneficiaries is a feature not a bug as it is better for society.
Having grown up in this seat I wish I had some kind of fascinating insight to share. My model has it as an SNP hold. The Lib Dems presumably will garner much of the anti-independence vote though, which was probably around 60% in 2014 I would guess but may be lower now as the area is very strongly pro-Remain and the Brexit vote has probably tipped more people towards the SNP. Ming Campbell had a very strong personal vote, I don't know how Gethins is viewed locally. The really fascinating thing is that the seat used to be a safe Tory one (including on slightly different boundaries before 1983) but it's impossible to imagine them winning now. Any London based journalists looking to cover distant marginals should opt for this seat over Workington, it's a lovely part of the world, although only gets about half an hour of sunlight in December.
On topic, and generally: With lots of MPs standing down and some switching parties, we need to pay even more attention than usual to the profiles of the candidates standing. This is especially so because of the Brexit divide.
Alastair mentions Cities of London and Westminster, where Mark Field is standing down and Chuka Umunna has been carpet-bombing innocent residents with leaflets, bar-charts and spurious questionnaires. He has certainly raised the LibDem profile here.
I've been holding off betting on this constituency because I wanted to see who the Conservatives selected in this very strongly Remain voting seat. The chosen candidate is Nickie Aiken, Leader of Westminster City Council, and a moderate Remainer at the referendum. She looks a really excellent choice for this constituency, making the Evens or better you can get on a Tory hold a good bet IMHO .
Richard, was she part of the Council that distinguished itself in the Grenfell Towers business?
The plan is to negotiate a deal, but then campaign against that deal. I think any normal person would find that ludicrous.
The plan is to negotiate the least economically damaging Brexit possible and allow the public to choose between that and Remain. This is not "ludicrous" in any regular sense of the word. The resulting Referendum, however, in having no option that could enthuse the Leave community would be a bit ludicrous. So I'll give you that.
The plan is to negotiate a deal, but then campaign against that deal. I think any normal person would find that ludicrous.
The plan is to negotiate the least economically damaging Brexit possible and allow the public to choose between that and Remain. This is not "ludicrous" in any regular sense of the word. The resulting Referendum, however, in having no option that could enthuse the Leave community would be a bit ludicrous. So I'll give you that.
Having Starmer and Thornberry lead the negotiations when they are committed to remain is the ludicrous part of it. Why not let Labour brexiteers do the negotiation part?
On topic, and generally: With lots of MPs standing down and some switching parties, we need to pay even more attention than usual to the profiles of the candidates standing. This is especially so because of the Brexit divide.
Alastair mentions Cities of London and Westminster, where Mark Field is standing down and Chuka Umunna has been carpet-bombing innocent residents with leaflets, bar-charts and spurious questionnaires. He has certainly raised the LibDem profile here.
I've been holding off betting on this constituency because I wanted to see who the Conservatives selected in this very strongly Remain voting seat. The chosen candidate is Nickie Aiken, Leader of Westminster City Council, and a moderate Remainer at the referendum. She looks a really excellent choice for this constituency, making the Evens or better you can get on a Tory hold a good bet IMHO .
Richard, was she part of the Council that distinguished itself in the Grenfell Towers business?
Comments
Recycling...who amongst us could object to that?
As things stand Farage is the single person most risking Brexit not happening.
As part of the Green New Deal, perhaps, when we die, Corbyn will oblige us to "recycle our corpses" into national compost heaps, producing energy for the socialist government offices in NuLondon, because we won't have the money for gas or oil
I have to say, I don't see why. No tax is fun, but an inheritance is a wholly unearned windfall to the recipient. Nice to have, but that's it. It's not, like income tax, a tax on work or, like VAT on businesses adding value.
You say it's "already been taxed" but lots of things are taxed both on entering our possession and on leaving (we pay income and sales taxes).
Older people should be encouraged to use (or give away if they prefer) their accumulated wealth in life. If they don't, that's sad for them... but why do we compensate via a windfall to their kids?
Somehow I am being unreasonable!
The number of private renters is falling...
We have extraterrestrials, fairies, unicorns and reincarnated donkeys all in one go:
https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/news/west-yorkshire-news/batley-spen-brexit-party-candidate-17202185
This is a blatant attempt to kick the report into the long grass so that it may be not be seen for months and months. It follows on other attempts to stymie the work of this particular Committee and comes from a government which has established a pattern of seeking to avoid scrutiny. It is a worrying development which ought to be criticised not defended on spurious grounds.
As for your claim that we should not worry because it will be leaked, well, words fail me...... Really, @Charles: this is utter nonsense and you know it. Shame on you.
https://twitter.com/bbcwalesnews/status/1191709844149035009?s=21
Consider the Queen. She has four children, eight grandchildren and eight great-grandchildren, to make 20 direct descendants. Thus she could give away £2.5m, tax-free, even if only considering her direct descendants. Much more than under the present system.
On the face of it this allows for more inheritance to escape tax, if it is spread more widely.
I was calling out lies and some blatant scaremongering on the part of the Labour Party. It does not follow that I am pro-US. Quite the opposite. I often find the FDA to be too stringent, often weirdly so, and find that the EFSA and the FSA make being a successful FBO very achievable, whilst still maintaining very high standards of public safety and consumer protection.
As an aside, I have worked in milking parlours. Luckily, having enjoyed a few warm showers, they say cow piss is good for you. All robots now though.
Swinson +2
Boris -29
Corbyn -45
Considering London is supposed to be Momentum Central those figures are terrible for Corbyn
https://twitter.com/philipjcowley/status/1191707948994551808
Inheritance tax also promotes social mobility.
If Con losses are limited to sub 15 then they probably need to take 20 net seats off Labour in England for a majority (Wales gains cancelling Scottish losses). Those 20 gains can be taken on a 1.5% Lab to Tory swing which is surely achievable.
And that wheeze took me 30 seconds to come up with. Labour are not good at this.
Against a policy that "made sense on every level", and grasped a long-overdue political nettle?
As opposed to taxing inheritance as income, which goes against the long-established principle of not taxing the same source of income twice?
So lets say someone receives an inheritance from a grandparent that might be tax free. For the rest of their life though they can't get anything else tax free - from any other grandparents, or from parents themselves when they pass on.
Some problems for Trump and it seems that a lot of voters are getting fed up with the constant drama BUT not much enthusiasm for the democrat front runners:
https://www.conservativehome.com/international/2019/11/lord-ashcroft-with-a-year-to-go-my-latest-research-looks-at-trumps-chances-of-getting-a-second-term.html
Bermondsey and Vauxhall are strong chances of being gains from Labour and Luciana Berger and Chukka have a chance but that's 6 possible gains max IMO and only Richmond and Bermondsey are very likely.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices/articles/ukprivaterentedsector/2018#:~:text=The number of households living,of 1.7 million (63%).
Launching the LibDem’s campaign, Ms Swinson, the party leader, said she was "absolutely categorically ruling out" Liberal Democrat votes putting Mr Corbyn into Number 10.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/11/05/jeremy-corbyn-not-fit-job-pm-jo-swinson-says-lib-dems-launch/
Edit: oh, you deleted it! I am told that it is not the case.
(1) Pay 20% tax on income and 30% tax on what you save out of it.
(2) Pay 60% tax on income and 0% tax on what you save out of it.
How many will opt for (2) because in (1) they get "taxed twice" which is "unfair"?
Richmond Park
Kensington
Cities of London & Westminster
Finchley & Golders Green
Putney
Wimbledon
Sutton & Cheam
Hornsey & Wood Green (unlikely)
Bermondsey & Old Southwark (unlikely)
Hampstead & Kilburn (unlikely)
As has been stated a thousand times if Boris loses Uxbridge to Labour he loses the election so no point him moving seats and screwing over the campaign.
Watch Keir Starmer very recently trying to defend / explain it
https://order-order.com/2019/11/05/starmer-flounders-labours-brexit-policy-gmb/
WHO DARES WINS
WE dare! WE will WIN!
We know how many people voted each way in a binary referendum, but we don't really know how many people would die in a ditch to follow through on their 2016 vote.
Especially bearing in mind all the tax I paid on that money in the first place.
Announcing this policy in election time would be courageous. But we need something like it. Setting the gift level a bit higher however might turn it into a wedge issue, showing the Tories are on the side of the mega wealthy.
I wonder whether "Tories say you shouldn't be taxed on gifts of £1m" will play quite as well?
Rich people leave their money to their children. Poor people leave their children nothing. The more you tax inheritances, the less goes to the undeserving rich (who've already had their parents buy them an education and a fair wallop of intra-vivos gifts while they were alive).
The lack of progress by the Labour party in taxing inherited wealth out of existence is yet another example of how, behind its populist mask, the Corbyn and Milne-run ramp is just a bunch of poshos wanting to keep their nest well-feathered.
Richmond Park
Bermondsey & Old Southwark
Sutton & Cheam
Finchley & Golders Green
Putney
Hornsey & Wood Green
Wimbledon
Vauxhall
Cities of London & Westminster
Kensington
Islington South & Finsbury
Hampstead & Kilburn
Chelsea & Fulham
I rate these in decreasing order of likelihood. Four looks like the outside best to me on this list, unless something unlikely happens.
"You work hard all your life, pay your taxes, and then on your deathbed here comes the government for another slice."
The easy option, since IHT does not raise much, would be to abolish it. Which this (potential) Labour policy would, ironically, but I fear its replacement - the LGT - would not find favour with the typical voter.
Alastair mentions Cities of London and Westminster, where Mark Field is standing down and Chuka Umunna has been carpet-bombing innocent residents with leaflets, bar-charts and spurious questionnaires. He has certainly raised the LibDem profile here. (They were a poor third in 2017, but he says only the LibDems can beat the Tories here)
I've been holding off betting on this constituency because I wanted to see who the Conservatives selected in this very strongly Remain voting seat. The chosen candidate is Nickie Aiken, Leader of Westminster City Council, and a moderate Remainer at the referendum. She looks a really excellent choice for this constituency, making the Evens or better you can get on a Tory hold a good bet IMHO .
It only works if you have poorer relations you are prepared to spread your estate around, or if you have a larger than average family.
IHT makes a trivial contribution to the tax take. In my days in the biz, it was always regarded as the most avoidable of taxes. The convential wisdom was that it was only paid by the poorly advised, the lazy and the unlucky.