Philip_Thompson said: "Or you could both accept democracy and accept that we voted to Leave.
Controversial suggestion I'm sure, what am I thinking?"
You, like others, adhere to the belief that leaving the EU is justified by dint of the majority wanting it. Direct democracy trumps rep democracy. I wonder whether you will entertain the notion that less than 50% now want to leave, thus defeating your argument?
No I do not entertain that notion, at the last ballot which measured this an absolute majority voted Leave. Unless or until a new ballot changes that, there is no difference.
Opinion polls gave Ed Miliband's Labour Party a lead in the polls from late 2010 to early 2015. Should David Cameron have vacated Downing Street and invited Ed Miliband to take his place as Prime Minister on the basis of opinion polls or is it votes that matter?
Yet you won't countenance another ballot.
Because he thinks they would lose. I'm not greatly in favour of referenda, but so much has changed since 2016 it would be the democratic way forward. If it genuinely is the will of the people to leave, it will still be leave as the answer. Brexiteers fear that may not be the case, and their nasty agenda might be found out through another poll.
Of all the stupid criticisms of Johnson possible, accusing him of not sufficiently quoting obscure historical figures has to be the dumbest. He literally does all the bloody time, and gets routinely criticised for it.
Exactly. I dislike the man, but that criticism really is either knowingly phoney or truly a sign that people are letting their dislike lead them to ridiculousness.
Either way its very lame.
Nothing wrong with Tusks comments particularly as he is standing down. I imagine the upset is the impression he wasnt working to get a deal but to delay so we changed our minds, but if wed wanted we could have left ages ago, it's on our parliamentarians that we didnt.
Until Boris replaced May we could have only left without a deal, or with a despicably terrible deal. The EU did not negotiate with May in good faith.
The EU gave a lot in negotiations with May. Your problem is that she wasn't asking for what you wanted because she had different priorities (such as preserving the Union and her deal with the DUP).
Perhaps if Parliament had been able to provide her with a negotiating mandate we would have had those arguments in 2017, rather than not having them at all except between Johnson and the ERG this autumn.
If May put her deal with the DUP over the concerns of voters then that says a lot about May - and of course she didn't even keep the DUP on board so what did she even achieve?
I don't know but presumably an inanimate object didn't take the photo? Couldn't that be the photographer's own seat and the red box has been placed in the seat while the photographer takes the picture?
Bozo pretending he does detail. He probably has one of his favourite porn mags hidden inside
I agree that as, with the "Dementia Tax", Labour's IHT reform, if it appears, will be ruthlessly misrepresented in the campaign and as a consequence perhaps cost votes out there amongst the ignorami. However, let's not do that here. We're better than that.
Mum dies, leaves house worth £1m to 4 children.
The net of tax inheritance will be HIGHER under the new system.
The extra money for each child will not in any way lessen their grief, of course, they will think about Mum every day of their lives until they themselves pass away, but it is certainly not to be sneezed at.
How many people have 4 children nowadays? In your scenario, if Mum has 1, 2 or 3 children which is much more likely then a lot more tax will be paid.
Perhaps we should call it the "only child tax" as only children will get disproportionately clobbered.
And at least with IHT you only get clobbered once. With this proposal, if you reach your cap you can then get clobbered for ever more. Someone gave you a pair of slippers for Christmas - have you paid your LGT on that?
Regarding Tusk`s comments (previous thread) . I think his analysis is spot on, and nicely encapsulates the reasons why I (after much agonising) voted Remain.
His Arendt comment echoes my view - expressed many times - that the only way that the Brexit decision can be overturned is if Leavers themselves accept that they got it wrong and want a re-think.
.
"Morality is the choices you make so that you can be friends with yourself," as Arendt also said. Boris is transparently somebody who is not friends with himself.
Though he is his own biggest fan.
(With the possible exception of HYUFD.)
Possible?! I think even BJ might feel a little queasy at at such relentless puffery.
I don’t know, those Nats who think Alex Salmond is being framed by the BritNat establishment are in a league of their own.
Philip_Thompson said: "Or you could both accept democracy and accept that we voted to Leave.
Controversial suggestion I'm sure, what am I thinking?"
You, like others, adhere to the belief that leaving the EU is justified by dint of the majority wanting it. Direct democracy trumps rep democracy. I wonder whether you will entertain the notion that less than 50% now want to leave, thus defeating your argument?
No I do not entertain that notion, at the last ballot which measured this an absolute majority voted Leave. Unless or until a new ballot changes that, there is no difference.
Opinion polls gave Ed Miliband's Labour Party a lead in the polls from late 2010 to early 2015. Should David Cameron have vacated Downing Street and invited Ed Miliband to take his place as Prime Minister on the basis of opinion polls or is it votes that matter?
Yet you won't countenance another ballot.
Because he thinks they would lose. I'm not greatly in favour of referenda, but so much has changed since 2016 it would be the democratic way forward. If it genuinely is the will of the people to leave, it will still be leave as the answer. Brexiteers fear that may not be the case, and their nasty agenda might be found out through another poll.
It will be democratic if a majority of MPs are elected on a mandate of holding a referendum.
The last referendum was only held because a majority were elected on that mandate.
I agree that as, with the "Dementia Tax", Labour's IHT reform, if it appears, will be ruthlessly misrepresented in the campaign and as a consequence perhaps cost votes out there amongst the ignorami. However, let's not do that here. We're better than that.
Mum dies, leaves house worth £1m to 4 children.
The net of tax inheritance will be HIGHER under the new system.
The extra money for each child will not in any way lessen their grief, of course, they will think about Mum every day of their lives until they themselves pass away, but it is certainly not to be sneezed at.
Corbyn's 'Santa Tax' will be ruthlessly exploited by the conservatives and qute right too
Stuart Dickson talking nonsense about East Dunbartonshire. Jo Swinson won the seat back in 2017 on the basis of SNP to Liberal switchers. The Tory vote in 2017 was 6% higher than it was in 2015. So no Tory to Liberal switchers helped her win!
Many Remainers - I would say most, but am prepared to be persuaded otherwise - are Remainers primarily because they view Remain as the low-risk option with regard to the economy. Persuading people keen on low-risk economic decision-making to pur Jeremy Corbyn in 10 Downing Street - with or without the help of the SNP - might be challenging.
I think that is quite insightful. I fall into that category. If Labour had a more centrist, more economically literate leader, Brexit and the Tories would be toast.
Is Mum the only person who bequeaths anything under your logic? Because isn't it a lifetime allowance?
So if Dad, or any of their 4 Grandparents or anyone else bequeaths them anything then it would be different.
Yes, each case would be different. Some would gain, some would lose. But the thrust is that instead of the estate paying, the recipient does - based on amount received and allowance available and personal financial circumstances. Broadly speaking, the bigger the bequest and the more affluent the recipient is before the bequest, the higher will be the tax. Therefore for "ordinary" people it is more likely to lead to less tax not more. It's borderline superb.
SNP the only party retaining both their Remain voters and their Leave voters. Surely due to SNP voters being far more motivated by Scottish independence than by attitudes to the EU.
Which is good for the tories and SNP but bad for other parties.
Regarding Tusk`s comments (previous thread) . I think his analysis is spot on, and nicely encapsulates the reasons why I (after much agonising) voted Remain.
His Arendt comment echoes my view - expressed many times - that the only way that the Brexit decision can be overturned is if Leavers themselves accept that they got it wrong and want a re-think.
.
"Morality is the choices you make so that you can be friends with yourself," as Arendt also said. Boris is transparently somebody who is not friends with himself.
Though he is his own biggest fan.
(With the possible exception of HYUFD.)
Possible?! I think even BJ might feel a little queasy at at such relentless puffery.
I don’t know, those Nats who think Alex Salmond is being framed by the BritNat establishment are in a league of their own.
There are many of us who think Alex Salmond is the "victim" of SNP infighting and there have been previous instances like the Free Church of Scotland some years ago backing an almost identical type of allegation which was made against Professor MacLeod. He was acquitted and the Free Church split as a result. Perhaps if Salmond is acquitted the SNP will fracture. There are people already starting to suggest Sturgeon will not be leading the SNP by the time of the next Holyrood election. If Salmond goes to trial early next year, it will be wall to wall bade news for the SNP no matter what they say.
I agree that as, with the "Dementia Tax", Labour's IHT reform, if it appears, will be ruthlessly misrepresented in the campaign and as a consequence perhaps cost votes out there amongst the ignorami. However, let's not do that here. We're better than that.
Mum dies, leaves house worth £1m to 4 children.
The net of tax inheritance will be HIGHER under the new system.
The extra money for each child will not in any way lessen their grief, of course, they will think about Mum every day of their lives until they themselves pass away, but it is certainly not to be sneezed at.
May's "dementia tax" was a net cost to the treasury (And hence an implied saving above the current system to the general public in aggregate). There have been net beneficiaries from some of the disability changes too I believe.
Noone hears from the winners when a new "tax" is on its way.
I agree that as, with the "Dementia Tax", Labour's IHT reform, if it appears, will be ruthlessly misrepresented in the campaign and as a consequence perhaps cost votes out there amongst the ignorami. However, let's not do that here. We're better than that.
Mum dies, leaves house worth £1m to 4 children.
The net of tax inheritance will be HIGHER under the new system.
The extra money for each child will not in any way lessen their grief, of course, they will think about Mum every day of their lives until they themselves pass away, but it is certainly not to be sneezed at.
Not sure of your sums. Current system: Say dad and mum owned property jointly; So the dad dies passing on the house:The tax limit is increased to £475k Mum dies with another £475k after leaving the house to children.
So thats £50k @ 40% which is £20k of tax,
Under labour £1m 4 ways is £250, so £125k less leaves £125 over the threshold.
Stuart Dickson talking nonsense about East Dunbartonshire. Jo Swinson won the seat back in 2017 on the basis of SNP to Liberal switchers. The Tory vote in 2017 was 6% higher than it was in 2015. So no Tory to Liberal switchers helped her win!
What's your evidence for that?
Since the 2015 and 2017 results are a matter of public record (Swinson up 4.3% in '17, Tories up 6% and SNP down 10%) it seems blindingly obvious unless there were some very circuitous switching.
I agree that as, with the "Dementia Tax", Labour's IHT reform, if it appears, will be ruthlessly misrepresented in the campaign and as a consequence perhaps cost votes out there amongst the ignorami. However, let's not do that here. We're better than that.
Mum dies, leaves house worth £1m to 4 children.
The net of tax inheritance will be HIGHER under the new system.
The extra money for each child will not in any way lessen their grief, of course, they will think about Mum every day of their lives until they themselves pass away, but it is certainly not to be sneezed at.
Not sure of your sums. Current system: Say dad and mum owned property jointly; So the dad dies passing on the house:The tax limit is increased to £475k Mum dies with another £475k after leaving the house to children.
So thats £50k @ 40% which is £20k of tax,
Under labour £1m 4 ways is £250, so £125k less leaves £125 over the threshold.
£125 *40% * 4=200k
So thats a tax grab of £180k for the taxman.,
And of course if only one child, the tax grab is a whopping £395,000.
I agree that as, with the "Dementia Tax", Labour's IHT reform, if it appears, will be ruthlessly misrepresented in the campaign and as a consequence perhaps cost votes out there amongst the ignorami. However, let's not do that here. We're better than that.
Mum dies, leaves house worth £1m to 4 children.
The net of tax inheritance will be HIGHER under the new system.
The extra money for each child will not in any way lessen their grief, of course, they will think about Mum every day of their lives until they themselves pass away, but it is certainly not to be sneezed at.
But that's from their mum. What if their dad lives separately. Before the mum dies he gives each child a £25k gift for a deposit on a house.
When the mum dies the allowance is now £100k for each child. Then the dad dies and ALL the inheritance from that is taxed.
It's not just an IHT. It's a GIFT tax. If you've used it up before you're left any money - ALL of any inheritance is taxed over the £125k aggregate of gifts received.
Average Tory lead (last 6 polls) 28 days ahead of GE19 = 10.3% Average Tory lead 28 days ahead of GE17 = 17%
Interesting statistic. My own instinct was always that the electorate collectively resiled from giving the Tories a majority based on those early polls. This was seen as OOOh Jeremy Corbyn, but was in fact nothing of the sort. It is one of the reasons that one can reasonably argue there is no mandate for hard Brexit. If a hung parliament happens again it will be very easy to argue that the electorate has no appetite for hard Brexit, and very little for Brexit at all.
Tim Walker exposing divisions within Liberal party about opposing remoaner candidates in Labour party on SKY News
I agree with Tim.
Why stand down for Tories Grieve and Soubry who haven't an earthly of winning but not for Duffield.
Asking for a friend who thinks it's because Swinson is a Tory.
Answer is simple. Labour have rejected any quid pro quo (which is not an issue with the indies who have none to offer). Labour could stand down in, say, Lewes in return for the LDs standing down in Canterbury - but they refuse any arrangement. It is not a one way street.
May's "dementia tax" was a net cost to the treasury (And hence an implied saving above the current system to the general public in aggregate). There have been net beneficiaries from some of the disability changes too I believe.
Noone hears from the winners when a new "tax" is on its way.
The Dementia Tax was an excellent policy.
Says much about our softhead politics and populace that it bombed.
I don't know but presumably an inanimate object didn't take the photo? Couldn't that be the photographer's own seat and the red box has been placed in the seat while the photographer takes the picture?
I'm confident that the PM travels with more than three other people.
Tim Walker exposing divisions within Liberal party about opposing remoaner candidates in Labour party on SKY News
Most libdem leaning people said he was a bad candidate when selected in a way I haven't seen for other libdem candidates, I'm not sure why though?
Was the bloke who has stepped down in High Peak also bad and all the local activists who agree its crackers to put another person forward in Canterbury are wrong?
Stuart Dickson talking nonsense about East Dunbartonshire. Jo Swinson won the seat back in 2017 on the basis of SNP to Liberal switchers. The Tory vote in 2017 was 6% higher than it was in 2015. So no Tory to Liberal switchers helped her win!
What's your evidence for that?
Since the 2015 and 2017 results are a matter of public record (Swinson up 4.3% in '17, Tories up 6% and SNP down 10%) it seems blindingly obvious unless there were some very circuitous switching.
It's more complicated than that Lib Dem vote, East Dumbartonshire 2015: 19,926 2017: 21,023
Overall turnout fell by 3000 votes. Looks to me like a mix of switching and differential turnout. Some SNP 2015 voters stayed home in 2017.
Stuart Dickson talking nonsense about East Dunbartonshire. Jo Swinson won the seat back in 2017 on the basis of SNP to Liberal switchers. The Tory vote in 2017 was 6% higher than it was in 2015. So no Tory to Liberal switchers helped her win!
What's your evidence for that?
Since the 2015 and 2017 results are a matter of public record (Swinson up 4.3% in '17, Tories up 6% and SNP down 10%) it seems blindingly obvious unless there were some very circuitous switching.
Tim Walker exposing divisions within Liberal party about opposing remoaner candidates in Labour party on SKY News
I agree with Tim.
Why stand down for Tories Grieve and Soubry who haven't an earthly of winning but not for Duffield.
Asking for a friend who thinks it's because Swinson is a Tory.
Answer is simple. Labour have rejected any quid pro quo (which is not an issue with the indies who have none to offer). Labour could stand down in, say, Lewes in return for the LDs standing down in Canterbury - but they refuse any arrangement. It is not a one way street.
What's the quid pro quo with ex Tories? LDs do not currently hold 638 seats and have 5% of MPs of Lab if you think QPQ is an equal thing you are mad LDs stand down in 20 Lab in 1 would be QPQ.
Stuart Dickson talking nonsense about East Dunbartonshire. Jo Swinson won the seat back in 2017 on the basis of SNP to Liberal switchers. The Tory vote in 2017 was 6% higher than it was in 2015. So no Tory to Liberal switchers helped her win!
What's your evidence for that?
Since the 2015 and 2017 results are a matter of public record (Swinson up 4.3% in '17, Tories up 6% and SNP down 10%) it seems blindingly obvious unless there were some very circuitous switching.
That's not evidence, and churn is difficult to prove. However talk me through the mental process in which thousands of SNP voters in 2015 changed to voting for an explicitly pro Union LD candidate in 2017? Perhaps a mailshot from a well know political betting expert changed their mind?
Of all the stupid criticisms of Johnson possible, accusing him of not sufficiently quoting obscure historical figures has to be the dumbest. He literally does all the bloody time, and gets routinely criticised for it.
Exactly. I dislike the man, but that criticism really is either knowingly phoney or truly a sign that people are letting their dislike lead them to ridiculousness.
Either way its very lame.
Nothing wrong with Tusks comments particularly as he is standing down. I imagine the upset is the impression he wasnt working to get a deal but to delay so we changed our minds, but if wed wanted we could have left ages ago, it's on our parliamentarians that we didnt.
Until Boris replaced May we could have only left without a deal, or with a despicably terrible deal. The EU did not negotiate with May in good faith.
The EU gave a lot in negotiations with May. Your problem is that she wasn't asking for what you wanted because she had different priorities (such as preserving the Union and her deal with the DUP).
Perhaps if Parliament had been able to provide her with a negotiating mandate we would have had those arguments in 2017, rather than not having them at all except between Johnson and the ERG this autumn.
If May put her deal with the DUP over the concerns of voters then that says a lot about May - and of course she didn't even keep the DUP on board so what did she even achieve?
Well indeed, but the fault was hers rather than the EUs. The EU was responding to her negotiating demands. You can't fault them for that.
I agree that as, with the "Dementia Tax", Labour's IHT reform, if it appears, will be ruthlessly misrepresented in the campaign and as a consequence perhaps cost votes out there amongst the ignorami. However, let's not do that here. We're better than that.
Mum dies, leaves house worth £1m to 4 children.
The net of tax inheritance will be HIGHER under the new system.
The extra money for each child will not in any way lessen their grief, of course, they will think about Mum every day of their lives until they themselves pass away, but it is certainly not to be sneezed at.
May's "dementia tax" was a net cost to the treasury (And hence an implied saving above the current system to the general public in aggregate). There have been net beneficiaries from some of the disability changes too I believe.
Noone hears from the winners when a new "tax" is on its way.
With any changes the issues arise both from the change and the way it is implemented. The principles behind the disability changes may be supportable, but the appalling and chaotic way they were implemented resulted in huge numbers of incorrect decisions, massive waits to get them overturned on appeal and real hardship for vulnerable people. It seems to be a hallmark of the recent Conservative government that even when they get changes right in principle, they are utterly incapable of managing the change properly. Probably a result of too many ministers who have never worked in the real world.
Stuart Dickson talking nonsense about East Dunbartonshire. Jo Swinson won the seat back in 2017 on the basis of SNP to Liberal switchers. The Tory vote in 2017 was 6% higher than it was in 2015. So no Tory to Liberal switchers helped her win!
What's your evidence for that?
Since the 2015 and 2017 results are a matter of public record (Swinson up 4.3% in '17, Tories up 6% and SNP down 10%) it seems blindingly obvious unless there were some very circuitous switching.
Tim Walker exposing divisions within Liberal party about opposing remoaner candidates in Labour party on SKY News
I agree with Tim.
Why stand down for Tories Grieve and Soubry who haven't an earthly of winning but not for Duffield.
Asking for a friend who thinks it's because Swinson is a Tory.
Answer is simple. Labour have rejected any quid pro quo (which is not an issue with the indies who have none to offer). Labour could stand down in, say, Lewes in return for the LDs standing down in Canterbury - but they refuse any arrangement. It is not a one way street.
What's the quid pro quo with ex Tories?
Oh dear - blind are we? They have nothing to trade so the decision has to be taken on what will most damage the Tories. Labour can (and should) trade.
Stuart Dickson talking nonsense about East Dunbartonshire. Jo Swinson won the seat back in 2017 on the basis of SNP to Liberal switchers. The Tory vote in 2017 was 6% higher than it was in 2015. So no Tory to Liberal switchers helped her win!
What's your evidence for that?
Since the 2015 and 2017 results are a matter of public record (Swinson up 4.3% in '17, Tories up 6% and SNP down 10%) it seems blindingly obvious unless there were some very circuitous switching.
That's not evidence, and churn is difficult to prove. However talk me through the mental process in which thousands of SNP voters in 2015 changed to voting for an explicitly pro Union LD candidate in 2017? Perhaps a mailshot from a well know political betting expert changed their mind?
I don't know but presumably an inanimate object didn't take the photo? Couldn't that be the photographer's own seat and the red box has been placed in the seat while the photographer takes the picture?
I'm confident that the PM travels with more than three other people.
Stuart Dickson talking nonsense about East Dunbartonshire. Jo Swinson won the seat back in 2017 on the basis of SNP to Liberal switchers. The Tory vote in 2017 was 6% higher than it was in 2015. So no Tory to Liberal switchers helped her win!
What's your evidence for that?
Since the 2015 and 2017 results are a matter of public record (Swinson up 4.3% in '17, Tories up 6% and SNP down 10%) it seems blindingly obvious unless there were some very circuitous switching.
That's not evidence, and churn is difficult to prove. However talk me through the mental process in which thousands of SNP voters in 2015 changed to voting for an explicitly pro Union LD candidate in 2017? Perhaps a mailshot from a well know political betting expert changed their mind?
If that is not evidence then I am Boris Johnson.
Na, his nom de plume when contributing to PB is either Philip Thompson or HYUFD.
Stuart Dickson talking nonsense about East Dunbartonshire. Jo Swinson won the seat back in 2017 on the basis of SNP to Liberal switchers. The Tory vote in 2017 was 6% higher than it was in 2015. So no Tory to Liberal switchers helped her win!
What's your evidence for that?
Since the 2015 and 2017 results are a matter of public record (Swinson up 4.3% in '17, Tories up 6% and SNP down 10%) it seems blindingly obvious unless there were some very circuitous switching.
That's not evidence, and churn is difficult to prove. However talk me through the mental process in which thousands of SNP voters in 2015 changed to voting for an explicitly pro Union LD candidate in 2017? Perhaps a mailshot from a well know political betting expert changed their mind?
An avowedly pro-independence political betting expert?
Monumentally stupid to base your vote on a straight Lab/Con choice. Your approach would gift Guildford to the Conservatives.
The choice is a Labour PM or a Conservative PM. Nobody is gifting anyone anything voting with that knowledge. The reason there was a Tory MP in Guildford previously is not because of somebodies "gift" but because over 30k Guildford voters voted for a Tory MP. Do those voters want Corbyn as Prime Minister or Johnson?
I can assure you a majority of voters want neither as PM, yet one of them will be. A sure sign that our democracy is broken...
Swinson's problem is that in a hung parliament situation she has to choose between Corbyn and Johnson. If no coalition is formed then Corbyn will put down a VNOC. If the LDs don't back it then Boris would continue with a minority government. If the LDs back it then Johnson would resign and the Queen would send for Corbyn.
Not if the LibDems continue to refuse to support a party led by Corbyn, she doesn't.
Most projections of the scenarii that let Labour have a chance of running the country require LD support, or at least agreement not to oppose.
SWINSON WON'T LET CORBYN IN. So if Corbyn persists in insisting on being PM, the Queen can't invite him to be PM - and if Johnson remains PM, he'll lose every vote too till the Queen invites an anti-Johnsonian not called Corbyn or McDonnell to be PM
There are scenarii in which the LDs' seats become irrelevant. But they're the least likely. The likeliest scenarii all mean Swinson ultimately really will be the Kingmaker. The only way to stop that is for Johnson to become a grownup or Corbyn to become a social democrat.
May's "dementia tax" was a net cost to the treasury (And hence an implied saving above the current system to the general public in aggregate). There have been net beneficiaries from some of the disability changes too I believe.
Noone hears from the winners when a new "tax" is on its way.
The Dementia Tax was an excellent policy.
Says much about our softhead politics and populace that it bombed.
Stuart Dickson talking nonsense about East Dunbartonshire. Jo Swinson won the seat back in 2017 on the basis of SNP to Liberal switchers. The Tory vote in 2017 was 6% higher than it was in 2015. So no Tory to Liberal switchers helped her win!
Stuart Dickson talking nonsense about East Dunbartonshire. Jo Swinson won the seat back in 2017 on the basis of SNP to Liberal switchers. The Tory vote in 2017 was 6% higher than it was in 2015. So no Tory to Liberal switchers helped her win!
What's your evidence for that?
Since the 2015 and 2017 results are a matter of public record (Swinson up 4.3% in '17, Tories up 6% and SNP down 10%) it seems blindingly obvious unless there were some very circuitous switching.
That's not evidence, and churn is difficult to prove. However talk me through the mental process in which thousands of SNP voters in 2015 changed to voting for an explicitly pro Union LD candidate in 2017? Perhaps a mailshot from a well know political betting expert changed their mind?
If that is not evidence then I am Boris Johnson.
TUD is right, it's not evidence. You can achieve swing without a single voter switching sides, just through differential turnout. Of course there will be a mix. There will be people in that constituency who switched from Ukip to Lib Dem, from SNP to Conservative, and all sorts of exotic transfers. The question is, how many? And you have no evidence either way.
May's "dementia tax" was a net cost to the treasury (And hence an implied saving above the current system to the general public in aggregate). There have been net beneficiaries from some of the disability changes too I believe.
Noone hears from the winners when a new "tax" is on its way.
The Dementia Tax was an excellent policy.
Says much about our softhead politics and populace that it bombed.
It was excellent it lost the Tory majority.
And Labour's gift tax would regain that Tory majority on its own
Stuart Dickson talking nonsense about East Dunbartonshire. Jo Swinson won the seat back in 2017 on the basis of SNP to Liberal switchers. The Tory vote in 2017 was 6% higher than it was in 2015. So no Tory to Liberal switchers helped her win!
What's your evidence for that?
Since the 2015 and 2017 results are a matter of public record (Swinson up 4.3% in '17, Tories up 6% and SNP down 10%) it seems blindingly obvious unless there were some very circuitous switching.
That's not evidence, and churn is difficult to prove. However talk me through the mental process in which thousands of SNP voters in 2015 changed to voting for an explicitly pro Union LD candidate in 2017? Perhaps a mailshot from a well know political betting expert changed their mind?
If that is not evidence then I am Boris Johnson.
Ok, I'll give you circumstantial evidence, ie depending on inference. How about infering what was going on in the heads of those (still hypothetical) SNP>LD switchers?
The A and E waiting times figures will not help the Tories today. Classic Labour territory
And the BBC News headline makes grim reading (use of the word “imploding” even though in quotation marks). A cynic would suggest the Beeb knew exactly what they were doing there.
May's "dementia tax" was a net cost to the treasury (And hence an implied saving above the current system to the general public in aggregate). There have been net beneficiaries from some of the disability changes too I believe.
Noone hears from the winners when a new "tax" is on its way.
The Dementia Tax was an excellent policy.
Says much about our softhead politics and populace that it bombed.
It was excellent it lost the Tory majority.
And Labour's gift tax would regain that Tory majority on its own
The A and E waiting times figures will not help the Tories today. Classic Labour territory
Hence Boris right to promise more money for the NHS than under May and Cameron, the Tories usually will not win on the NHS but they can try and neutralise the issue
I agree that as, with the "Dementia Tax", Labour's IHT reform, if it appears, will be ruthlessly misrepresented in the campaign and as a consequence perhaps cost votes out there amongst the ignorami. However, let's not do that here. We're better than that.
Mum dies, leaves house worth £1m to 4 children.
The net of tax inheritance will be HIGHER under the new system.
The extra money for each child will not in any way lessen their grief, of course, they will think about Mum every day of their lives until they themselves pass away, but it is certainly not to be sneezed at.
Not sure of your sums. Current system: Say dad and mum owned property jointly; So the dad dies passing on the house:The tax limit is increased to £475k Mum dies with another £475k after leaving the house to children.
So thats £50k @ 40% which is £20k of tax,
Under labour £1m 4 ways is £250, so £125k less leaves £125 over the threshold.
£125 *40% * 4=200k
So thats a tax grab of £180k for the taxman.,
Corbyn is not going to leave *more* for people with inherited wealth. If he makes a big tax change he will makes sure he take more for the treasury. This plan takes £9 billion more. Someone has to be worse off
Not sure of your sums. Current system: Say dad and mum owned property jointly; So the dad dies passing on the house:The tax limit is increased to £475k Mum dies with another £475k after leaving the house to children.
So thats £50k @ 40% which is £20k of tax,
Under labour £1m 4 ways is £250, so £125k less leaves £125 over the threshold.
£125 *40% * 4=200k
So thats a tax grab of £180k for the taxman.
It depends - pls see my reply to @Philip_Thompson. In essence it's a switch of mindset. Recipient pays not the estate. Which is great because it addresses the big perception problem with IHT. "You work hard for it, pay tax all your life, then the taxman nicks a slice when you die." No longer. Now the taxman tales nothing off you when you die. The only ones paying any tax are those who receive the windfall and even then only if it exceeds a large sum. And of course they have NOT worked hard for it. It's unearned income which will still receive a favourable tax treatment compared to other types of such.
May's "dementia tax" was a net cost to the treasury (And hence an implied saving above the current system to the general public in aggregate). There have been net beneficiaries from some of the disability changes too I believe.
Noone hears from the winners when a new "tax" is on its way.
The Dementia Tax was an excellent policy.
Says much about our softhead politics and populace that it bombed.
It was excellent it lost the Tory majority.
And Labour's gift tax would regain that Tory majority on its own
I agree that as, with the "Dementia Tax", Labour's IHT reform, if it appears, will be ruthlessly misrepresented in the campaign and as a consequence perhaps cost votes out there amongst the ignorami. However, let's not do that here. We're better than that.
Mum dies, leaves house worth £1m to 4 children.
The net of tax inheritance will be HIGHER under the new system.
The extra money for each child will not in any way lessen their grief, of course, they will think about Mum every day of their lives until they themselves pass away, but it is certainly not to be sneezed at.
May's "dementia tax" was a net cost to the treasury (And hence an implied saving above the current system to the general public in aggregate). There have been net beneficiaries from some of the disability changes too I believe.
Noone hears from the winners when a new "tax" is on its way.
With any changes the issues arise both from the change and the way it is implemented. The principles behind the disability changes may be supportable, but the appalling and chaotic way they were implemented resulted in huge numbers of incorrect decisions, massive waits to get them overturned on appeal and real hardship for vulnerable people. It seems to be a hallmark of the recent Conservative government that even when they get changes right in principle, they are utterly incapable of managing the change properly. Probably a result of too many ministers who have never worked in the real world.
Well said.
People with degenerative illnesses having to go through the cycle of:
"apply, rejection, seek mandatory reconsideration, rejection, appeal, win the appeal*"
...for benefits such as PIP, ESA and UC is bad enough.
But then 12 months later they recieve a 24 page form which they have to complete as they are being 're-assessed' and they are back in the cycle all over again.
The money this process must waste is presumably offset by the fact that many entitled to this support find it too difficult to complete the process and so go without.
Still, such people probably don't vote, so not to worry, eh?
(*70% win the tribunal appeal if they persevere to this stage.)
Stuart Dickson talking nonsense about East Dunbartonshire. Jo Swinson won the seat back in 2017 on the basis of SNP to Liberal switchers. The Tory vote in 2017 was 6% higher than it was in 2015. So no Tory to Liberal switchers helped her win!
What's your evidence for that?
The results! FFS
Ah, results! I'm sure you'll agree that on the 'evidence' of results that the Tory party has been an irrelevance despised by the majority of Scots since 1955.
Tim Walker exposing divisions within Liberal party about opposing remoaner candidates in Labour party on SKY News
I agree with Tim.
Why stand down for Tories Grieve and Soubry who haven't an earthly of winning but not for Duffield.
Asking for a friend who thinks it's because Swinson is a Tory.
Bollocks again.
Why do you want Tories leave supporting Candidate to gain Canterbury from ultra Remainer Duffield? Same in High Peak and dozens of other Lab Tory marginals.
Stuart Dickson talking nonsense about East Dunbartonshire. Jo Swinson won the seat back in 2017 on the basis of SNP to Liberal switchers. The Tory vote in 2017 was 6% higher than it was in 2015. So no Tory to Liberal switchers helped her win!
What's your evidence for that?
Since the 2015 and 2017 results are a matter of public record (Swinson up 4.3% in '17, Tories up 6% and SNP down 10%) it seems blindingly obvious unless there were some very circuitous switching.
IF you look at 2010 to 2015 the SNP vote can be explained by capturing the entirety of the incerased turnout plus all the lost Labour voters.
Swinson's vote went up in 2015 despite losing the seat. She got Con-to-LD switchers then.
She then only added a further 1000 votes from 2015 to 2017.
Differential Turnout. In 2017 SNP turnout plunged and SCon turnout rose.
Stuart Dickson talking nonsense about East Dunbartonshire. Jo Swinson won the seat back in 2017 on the basis of SNP to Liberal switchers. The Tory vote in 2017 was 6% higher than it was in 2015. So no Tory to Liberal switchers helped her win!
What's your evidence for that?
The results! FFS
Ah, results! I'm sure you'll agree that on the 'evidence' of results that the Tory party has been an irrelevance despised by the majority of Scots since 1955.
Very refreshing to see a Scottish Tory actually interested in results. They’ve spent the last two years telling anybody who would listen that they “won” in 2017, with 22% of the seats. The party which “lost” only got 59% of the seats. And, as everyone knows, 22 is a much bigger number than 59.
Not sure of your sums. Current system: Say dad and mum owned property jointly; So the dad dies passing on the house:The tax limit is increased to £475k Mum dies with another £475k after leaving the house to children.
So thats £50k @ 40% which is £20k of tax,
Under labour £1m 4 ways is £250, so £125k less leaves £125 over the threshold.
£125 *40% * 4=200k
So thats a tax grab of £180k for the taxman.
It depends - pls see my reply to @Philip_Thompson. In essence it's a switch of mindset. Recipient pays not the estate. Which is great because it addresses the big perception problem with IHT. "You work hard for it, pay tax all your life, then the taxman nicks a slice when you die." No longer. Now the taxman tales nothing off you when you die. The only ones paying any tax are those who receive the windfall and even then only if it exceeds a large sum. And of course they have NOT worked hard for it. It's unearned income which will still receive a favourable tax treatment compared to other types of such.
Or on the other hand, people will see it as 'I want to help my son/daughter' out with X/Y/Z and they've got to pay a chunk of it across to the tax man up front..
I can see where Chakrabortty is coming from but this all seems backwards to me. It gives too much credit to despotic-regimes-as-examples and too little credit to the political campaigners of the West who had positive visions for how society should be fairer. The latter is a vision that people from all parts of the political spectrum can participate in, from conservatives to socialists. We need to stop thinking of capitalism as oppressive and start to realise that it is a tool of great power that can be used or misused. We don't need communism to tell us about capitalism's deficiencies. We see those by looking at places where capitalism is done well.
May's "dementia tax" was a net cost to the treasury (And hence an implied saving above the current system to the general public in aggregate). There have been net beneficiaries from some of the disability changes too I believe.
Noone hears from the winners when a new "tax" is on its way.
The Dementia Tax was an excellent policy.
Says much about our softhead politics and populace that it bombed.
It was excellent it lost the Tory majority.
And Labour's gift tax would regain that Tory majority on its own
Is it in the Manifesto?
Flying a kite? If it is or if it isn't it will lose Lab votes. Why, if it only affects a small proportion of the population?
Aspiration. It craps all over aspiration. Look at how many people play the lottery. Let's imagine that a party said that in future 90% of all lottery wins over £1m would be taken away for tax purposes. It would be hugely unpopular even though the chances of winning the lottery are infinitesimally small.
Stuart Dickson talking nonsense about East Dunbartonshire. Jo Swinson won the seat back in 2017 on the basis of SNP to Liberal switchers. The Tory vote in 2017 was 6% higher than it was in 2015. So no Tory to Liberal switchers helped her win!
What's your evidence for that?
Since the 2015 and 2017 results are a matter of public record (Swinson up 4.3% in '17, Tories up 6% and SNP down 10%) it seems blindingly obvious unless there were some very circuitous switching.
You can almost see the penny dropping.
You mean the clueless wonders are in for a shock?
Clueless wonders? Is that the best on offer? No wonder the electorate is disillusioned.
Lib Dems shortening in both Gordon and Inverness NB&S. Now 10/1 in both, from 20/1 and 12/1 yesterday.
Libdems have a chance in Inverness. Gordon is safe Tory.
Council by-election today in Inverness today (Inverness Central ward). May be a harbinger. Tories will be hoping the by election a few weeks back in Gordon was a harbinger as their vote share went up by 10% and they overtook the SNP in the ward concerned (Bridge of Don).
Right wing: people should pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, the rich are rich because they worked hard and deserve it, don't give handouts to people who don't contribute to society, you should have to work to have money.
Right wing: it is perfectly fine for wealth to accumulate amongst the already richest people in society through inheritance, allowing a class of people who can be unfathomably wealthy just because their parents were wealthy.
Tim Walker exposing divisions within Liberal party about opposing remoaner candidates in Labour party on SKY News
I agree with Tim.
Why stand down for Tories Grieve and Soubry who haven't an earthly of winning but not for Duffield.
Asking for a friend who thinks it's because Swinson is a Tory.
Bollocks again.
Why do you want Tories leave supporting Candidate to gain Canterbury from ultra Remainer Duffield? Same in High Peak and dozens of other Lab Tory marginals.
Bollocks wouldn't be an appropriate response!
Because Remainers don't want Remain for its own sake, they want it because they think it is the best bet for economic stability. Labour aren't currently offering this.
Corbyn is not going to leave *more* for people with inherited wealth. If he makes a big tax change he will makes sure he take more for the treasury. This plan takes £9 billion more. Someone has to be worse off
Yes, it would be a net gain for the Treasury, which is needed given the ambitious spending and investment plans. And the extra burden would fall on the truly affluent. There would be many winners at the lower end of the scale. It is also simpler and harder to evade than IHT. It's everything you want from a tax reform. Well perhaps not "you" but you know what I mean.
May's "dementia tax" was a net cost to the treasury (And hence an implied saving above the current system to the general public in aggregate). There have been net beneficiaries from some of the disability changes too I believe.
Noone hears from the winners when a new "tax" is on its way.
The Dementia Tax was an excellent policy.
Says much about our softhead politics and populace that it bombed.
It was excellent it lost the Tory majority.
And Labour's gift tax would regain that Tory majority on its own
Is it in the Manifesto?
Flying a kite? If it is or if it isn't it will lose Lab votes. Why, if it only affects a small proportion of the population?
Aspiration. It craps all over aspiration. Look at how many people play the lottery. Let's imagine that a party said that in future 90% of all lottery wins over £1m would be taken away for tax purposes. It would be hugely unpopular even though the chances of winning the lottery are infinitesimally small.
You can't "aspire" to inherit millions of pounds if your whole family is in poverty.
Stuart Dickson talking nonsense about East Dunbartonshire. Jo Swinson won the seat back in 2017 on the basis of SNP to Liberal switchers. The Tory vote in 2017 was 6% higher than it was in 2015. So no Tory to Liberal switchers helped her win!
What's your evidence for that?
Since the 2015 and 2017 results are a matter of public record (Swinson up 4.3% in '17, Tories up 6% and SNP down 10%) it seems blindingly obvious unless there were some very circuitous switching.
You can almost see the penny dropping.
You mean the clueless wonders are in for a shock?
Clueless wonders? Is that the best on offer? No wonder the electorate is disillusioned.
Clueless wonders was what Stuart called people who had the temerity to bet/predict a No victory in September 2014.
May's "dementia tax" was a net cost to the treasury (And hence an implied saving above the current system to the general public in aggregate). There have been net beneficiaries from some of the disability changes too I believe.
Noone hears from the winners when a new "tax" is on its way.
The Dementia Tax was an excellent policy.
Says much about our softhead politics and populace that it bombed.
It was excellent it lost the Tory majority.
And Labour's gift tax would regain that Tory majority on its own
Is it in the Manifesto?
Flying a kite? If it is or if it isn't it will lose Lab votes. Why, if it only affects a small proportion of the population?
Aspiration. It craps all over aspiration. Look at how many people play the lottery. Let's imagine that a party said that in future 90% of all lottery wins over £1m would be taken away for tax purposes. It would be hugely unpopular even though the chances of winning the lottery are infinitesimally small.
You can't "aspire" to inherit millions of pounds if your whole family is in poverty.
No. Aspire was the wrong word for the lottery. Day dream perhaps.
But you can aspire to make millions of pounds to leave to your family.
May's "dementia tax" was a net cost to the treasury (And hence an implied saving above the current system to the general public in aggregate). There have been net beneficiaries from some of the disability changes too I believe.
Noone hears from the winners when a new "tax" is on its way.
The Dementia Tax was an excellent policy.
Says much about our softhead politics and populace that it bombed.
It was excellent it lost the Tory majority.
And Labour's gift tax would regain that Tory majority on its own
Is it in the Manifesto?
Flying a kite? If it is or if it isn't it will lose Lab votes. Why, if it only affects a small proportion of the population?
Aspiration. It craps all over aspiration. Look at how many people play the lottery. Let's imagine that a party said that in future 90% of all lottery wins over £1m would be taken away for tax purposes. It would be hugely unpopular even though the chances of winning the lottery are infinitesimally small.
You can't "aspire" to inherit millions of pounds if your whole family is in poverty.
People do though. My mother calls it the "Del Boy Delusion".
Right wing: people should pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, the rich are rich because they worked hard and deserve it, don't give handouts to people who don't contribute to society, you should have to work to have money.
Right wing: it is perfectly fine for wealth to accumulate amongst the already richest people in society through inheritance, allowing a class of people who can be unfathomably wealthy just because their parents were wealthy.
Day one, I bought an apple, spent time polishing it and sold it for a profit. With the profits, on day two I bought two apples, polished them, and sold them for profit. On day three I bought four apples, and sold them for profit. On day four my childless uncle died and I inherited ten million dollars.
The equilibrium is hard to balance, and I think it is why many are angry at Swinson on the remain / left side. BUT, the more anti-Labour the LDs are, the less likely a Corbyn PMship seems, the more some people might hold their nose and vote Labour even if they dislike Corbyn.
On current polling, depending on tactical voting, geographic efficiency, etc. we could see a Tory majority of 40+, all the way to a hung parliament with 30-40 seats separating Tories and Labour. I don't know whether tactical voting should be baked into polls as they are, but I can imagine a swing of a couple % either way making a big difference.
Right wing: people should pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, the rich are rich because they worked hard and deserve it, don't give handouts to people who don't contribute to society, you should have to work to have money.
Right wing: it is perfectly fine for wealth to accumulate amongst the already richest people in society through inheritance, allowing a class of people who can be unfathomably wealthy just because their parents were wealthy.
If you were talking about the 18th Century and taxing estates and land from the aristocracy I would agree with you.
But we're not. We're talking about things such as ordinary houses, peoples savings, assets earned through hard work which have already been taxed by the government and when you want to pass that on to your loved ones when you pass away the government takes another slice.
We're not talking about "unfathomable wealth". We're talking about normal peoples assets accumulated over a lifetime.
Quite why you think the world is like Downton Abbey is rather strange.
May's "dementia tax" was a net cost to the treasury (And hence an implied saving above the current system to the general public in aggregate). There have been net beneficiaries from some of the disability changes too I believe.
Noone hears from the winners when a new "tax" is on its way.
The Dementia Tax was an excellent policy.
Says much about our softhead politics and populace that it bombed.
It was excellent it lost the Tory majority.
And Labour's gift tax would regain that Tory majority on its own
Is it in the Manifesto?
Flying a kite? If it is or if it isn't it will lose Lab votes. Why, if it only affects a small proportion of the population?
Aspiration. It craps all over aspiration. Look at how many people play the lottery. Let's imagine that a party said that in future 90% of all lottery wins over £1m would be taken away for tax purposes. It would be hugely unpopular even though the chances of winning the lottery are infinitesimally small.
You can't "aspire" to inherit millions of pounds if your whole family is in poverty.
No. Aspire was the wrong word for the lottery. Day dream perhaps.
But you can aspire to make millions of pounds to leave to your family.
I "aspire" to live in a country where we prioritise the shelter, nutrition, health and happiness of all people, no matter how vulnerable.
Well, yes, and that in and of itself was a great thing, but we are never going to get any good tax reform done in this country with everything being dumbed down the way it is. Burnham's "Death Tax" was another casualty in 2010.
This fabulous IHT reform, I suppose will not be in the manifesto for this reason. So depressing.
Well, yes, and that in and of itself was a great thing, but we are never going to get any good tax reform done in this country with everything being dumbed down the way it is. Burnham's "Death Tax" was another casualty in 2010.
This fabulous IHT reform, I suppose will not be in the manifesto for this reason. So depressing.
Things like this can only happen when both a party has a large majority, and the economy is going very well. Niether is likely anytime soon.
Comments
Perhaps we should call it the "only child tax" as only children will get disproportionately clobbered.
And at least with IHT you only get clobbered once. With this proposal, if you reach your cap you can then get clobbered for ever more. Someone gave you a pair of slippers for Christmas - have you paid your LGT on that?
Crikey, we`re allowed a joke now and then.
The last referendum was only held because a majority were elected on that mandate.
IHT is fine as it is
There have been net beneficiaries from some of the disability changes too I believe.
Noone hears from the winners when a new "tax" is on its way.
Why stand down for Tories Grieve and Soubry who haven't an earthly of winning but not for Duffield.
Asking for a friend who thinks it's because Swinson is a Tory.
Current system:
Say dad and mum owned property jointly; So the dad dies passing on the house:The tax limit is increased to £475k
Mum dies with another £475k after leaving the house to children.
So thats £50k @ 40% which is £20k of tax,
Under labour
£1m 4 ways is £250, so £125k less leaves £125 over the threshold.
£125 *40% * 4=200k
So thats a tax grab of £180k for the taxman.,
Only children weep now...
When the mum dies the allowance is now £100k for each child. Then the dad dies and ALL the inheritance from that is taxed.
It's not just an IHT. It's a GIFT tax. If you've used it up before you're left any money - ALL of any inheritance is taxed over the £125k aggregate of gifts received.
He's not a liberal first, he's a remoaner first.
Says much about our softhead politics and populace that it bombed.
Joking aside, if you think that argument is going to get traction you may be disappointed!
Lib Dem vote, East Dumbartonshire
2015: 19,926
2017: 21,023
Overall turnout fell by 3000 votes. Looks to me like a mix of switching and differential turnout. Some SNP 2015 voters stayed home in 2017.
https://twitter.com/gloriadepiero/status/1194912869940420608?s=21
However talk me through the mental process in which thousands of SNP voters in 2015 changed to voting for an explicitly pro Union LD candidate in 2017? Perhaps a mailshot from a well know political betting expert changed their mind?
Wonder if we'll see a Mori poll turning up this morning? Haven't had one for two weeks.
Most projections of the scenarii that let Labour have a chance of running the country require LD support, or at least agreement not to oppose.
SWINSON WON'T LET CORBYN IN. So if Corbyn persists in insisting on being PM, the Queen can't invite him to be PM - and if Johnson remains PM, he'll lose every vote too till the Queen invites an anti-Johnsonian not called Corbyn or McDonnell to be PM
There are scenarii in which the LDs' seats become irrelevant. But they're the least likely. The likeliest scenarii all mean Swinson ultimately really will be the Kingmaker. The only way to stop that is for Johnson to become a grownup or Corbyn to become a social democrat.
Of course there will be a mix. There will be people in that constituency who switched from Ukip to Lib Dem, from SNP to Conservative, and all sorts of exotic transfers. The question is, how many? And you have no evidence either way.
People with degenerative illnesses having to go through the cycle of:
"apply, rejection, seek mandatory reconsideration, rejection, appeal, win the appeal*"
...for benefits such as PIP, ESA and UC is bad enough.
But then 12 months later they recieve a 24 page form which they have to complete as they are being 're-assessed' and they are back in the cycle all over again.
The money this process must waste is presumably offset by the fact that many entitled to this support find it too difficult to complete the process and so go without.
Still, such people probably don't vote, so not to worry, eh?
(*70% win the tribunal appeal if they persevere to this stage.)
Bollocks wouldn't be an appropriate response!
https://twitter.com/brexitparty_uk/status/1194918146844643330?s=21
Swinson's vote went up in 2015 despite losing the seat. She got Con-to-LD switchers then.
She then only added a further 1000 votes from 2015 to 2017.
Differential Turnout. In 2017 SNP turnout plunged and SCon turnout rose.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/14/task-politics-today-scare-capitalists-communism
I can see where Chakrabortty is coming from but this all seems backwards to me. It gives too much credit to despotic-regimes-as-examples and too little credit to the political campaigners of the West who had positive visions for how society should be fairer. The latter is a vision that people from all parts of the political spectrum can participate in, from conservatives to socialists. We need to stop thinking of capitalism as oppressive and start to realise that it is a tool of great power that can be used or misused. We don't need communism to tell us about capitalism's deficiencies. We see those by looking at places where capitalism is done well.
Tories always ahead with golden generation.
Aspiration. It craps all over aspiration. Look at how many people play the lottery. Let's imagine that a party said that in future 90% of all lottery wins over £1m would be taken away for tax purposes. It would be hugely unpopular even though the chances of winning the lottery are infinitesimally small.
Right wing: it is perfectly fine for wealth to accumulate amongst the already richest people in society through inheritance, allowing a class of people who can be unfathomably wealthy just because their parents were wealthy.
But you can aspire to make millions of pounds to leave to your family.
With the profits, on day two I bought two apples, polished them, and sold them for profit.
On day three I bought four apples, and sold them for profit.
On day four my childless uncle died and I inherited ten million dollars.
https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1194927368709791744
The equilibrium is hard to balance, and I think it is why many are angry at Swinson on the remain / left side. BUT, the more anti-Labour the LDs are, the less likely a Corbyn PMship seems, the more some people might hold their nose and vote Labour even if they dislike Corbyn.
On current polling, depending on tactical voting, geographic efficiency, etc. we could see a Tory majority of 40+, all the way to a hung parliament with 30-40 seats separating Tories and Labour. I don't know whether tactical voting should be baked into polls as they are, but I can imagine a swing of a couple % either way making a big difference.
But we're not. We're talking about things such as ordinary houses, peoples savings, assets earned through hard work which have already been taxed by the government and when you want to pass that on to your loved ones when you pass away the government takes another slice.
We're not talking about "unfathomable wealth". We're talking about normal peoples assets accumulated over a lifetime.
Quite why you think the world is like Downton Abbey is rather strange.
This fabulous IHT reform, I suppose will not be in the manifesto for this reason. So depressing.