It seems like SF and DUP might lose a seat or two as this suggests, but will much change? What incentive is there for the groups to start working together again?
It's only a matter of WHEN, and not if, SF and DUP won't be the largest parties.
I think it's dangerous to comment on Ulster politics if you're not native. So I don't.
Native = a person born in a specified place or associated with a place by birth, whether subsequently resident there or not.
What makes you think I'm not native (I assume northern Ireland)?
What is with these numbers not making sense. If the gains and losses from last election are correct, it was Con win last time, so no Con gain.
In multi-member wards, vote share changes are normally shown as being from the highest vote for each party at previous election.
Whereas the councillor being replaced may not have been the one with the highest number of votes (and of course nobody is being replaced from other parties).
So easiest to forget whether gain or loss - just look at the vote share change.
As with the SNP - "Free Stuff" benefits the better off:
"Labour’s manifesto includes a £600 million promise to scrap prescription charges in England. Broadly speaking, the old, the young, the poor, the disabled and the chronically sick are already exempt from charges: as a result 89% of prescriptions last year were provided free. The main beneficiaries of Labour’s policy to make the remaining 11% free of charge are therefore likely to be working-age people of reasonable financial means, and who are not chronically sick."
The people of Bolton have not been won over by Corbyn
On the basis of this QT, they are poised to elect Chuka and the SNP.
Who is the woman from the Torygraph, she looks terrified?
A pretty pisspoor panel, but she does look a little over stimulated.
There's something anachronistic about Johnson's new Tory Party which hasn't been obvious since the early days of Thatcher. A lot depends on the zeitgeist. For all that the polls are saying this is by no means a popular government
I think this a deeply unpopular government that is one of the results of pitching "people against parliament". It is likely to get a stay of execution because of the appalling state of the Labour party, but not for long. The stench of incompetence and mendacity of the Tories cannot be covered up for long.
Fair enough, but can we consign the marxists to the scrap heap of history first.
I like my local Lib Dem candidate - he would get my vote except the marxists must be kept out.
No problem. A LD vote is a safe vote. Swinson has stated that she will not support Corbyn and Davey's financial rectitude is chalk and cheese compared to McDonnell's financial incontinence.
Is that the same Swinson who signed a personal pledge in 2010 to vote against any rise in tuition fees, or a different one?
Her word isn't worth anything to me. I don't know why it would be to you.
Hypothetical polls - worth less than the paper they are written on.
At some point, people are going to have to start entertaining the idea that Johnson and Cummings might actually know what they're doing.
Hopefully after Dec 12.
There's a wonderful aphorism by Warren Buffett that I'm a great believer of that goes something like this:
"When a management with a reputation for brilliance takes over a business with a reputation for poor performance, it is the reputation of the business that remains intact."
We humans like simple stories. Our brains are hardwired to believe them. Dominic Cummings is the superhero in this tale: with insight, and brilliance and intelligence.
The reality is simpler. People, even most Remainers, want Brexit done. Corbyn is a dangerous joke. Johnson is like syphilis when the alternative is herpes. At least you know that you can get rid of him without too many consequences later.
But Boris Johnson is a man who sways in the slightest breath of wind if he sees a second of advantage. (And by advantage, I mean one second longer in power.) Like Tony Blair, who I sadly think he resembles, he is a man with only a passing interest in the truth.
And he is likely to be handed a large majority. Not because of the brilliance of Cummings, but because he's in the right place at the right time.
Maybe I'm too pessimistic. (He's certainly better than the alternatives.) But I fear that the next five years are not going to go well for the UK.
Hypothetical polls - worth less than the paper they are written on.
At some point, people are going to have to start entertaining the idea that Johnson and Cummings might actually know what they're doing.
Hopefully after Dec 12.
There's a wonderful aphorism by Warren Buffett that I'm a great believer of that goes something like this:
"When a management with a reputation for brilliance takes over a business with a reputation for poor performance, it is the reputation of the business that remains intact."
We humans like simple stories. Our brains are hardwired to believe them. Dominic Cummings is the superhero in this tale: with insight, and brilliance and intelligence.
The reality is simpler. People, even most Remainers, want Brexit done. Corbyn is a dangerous joke. Johnson is like syphilis when the alternative is herpes. At least you know that you can get rid of him without too many consequences later.
But Boris Johnson is a man who sways in the slightest breath of wind if he sees a second of advantage. (And by advantage, I mean one second longer in power.) Like Tony Blair, who I sadly think he resembles, he is a man with only a passing interest in the truth.
And he is likely to be handed a large majority. Not because of the brilliance of Cummings, but because he's in the right place at the right time.
Maybe I'm too pessimistic. (He's certainly better than the alternatives.) But I fear that the next five years are not going to go well for the UK.
Some other aphorisms seem potentially apposite here - the one about it being better to be lucky than skilful, for one. Possibly also the one about the golfer who seemed to get luckier the more he practiced.
It's totally plausible that Johnson is just a chancer with a bunch of advantages from birth that are responsible for almost all his achievements. But, he's been doing this a while now, and whatever he's doing does seem to be working.
Hypothetical polls - worth less than the paper they are written on.
At some point, people are going to have to start entertaining the idea that Johnson and Cummings might actually know what they're doing.
Hopefully after Dec 12.
There's a wonderful aphorism by Warren Buffett that I'm a great believer of that goes something like this:
"When a management with a reputation for brilliance takes over a business with a reputation for poor performance, it is the reputation of the business that remains intact."
We humans like simple stories. Our brains are hardwired to believe them. Dominic Cummings is the superhero in this tale: with insight, and brilliance and intelligence.
The reality is simpler. People, even most Remainers, want Brexit done. Corbyn is a dangerous joke. Johnson is like syphilis when the alternative is herpes. At least you know that you can get rid of him without too many consequences later.
But Boris Johnson is a man who sways in the slightest breath of wind if he sees a second of advantage. (And by advantage, I mean one second longer in power.) Like Tony Blair, who I sadly think he resembles, he is a man with only a passing interest in the truth.
And he is likely to be handed a large majority. Not because of the brilliance of Cummings, but because he's in the right place at the right time.
Maybe I'm too pessimistic. (He's certainly better than the alternatives.) But I fear that the next five years are not going to go well for the UK.
Some other aphorisms seem potentially apposite here - the one about it being better to be lucky than skilful, for one. Possibly also the one about the golfer who seemed to get luckier the more he practiced.
It's totally plausible that Johnson is just a chancer with a bunch of advantages from birth that are responsible for almost all his achievements. But, he's been doing this a while now, and whatever he's doing does seem to be working.
Labours manifesto seems to be going down like a bowl of cold sick in Bolton on Question Time?
Mildly encouraging if true. One does rather gather the impression that QT audiences are disproportionately comprised of lefties.
Any decent small c-conservative would be safely at home with a cup of tea, or perhaps cocoa, if not already in bed by this time of night.
I’m not watching but just received a message from someone who couldn’t believe how much people seemed to like the Labour policies on QT.
Who knows?
QT audiences are selected to a large extent by asking the local parties to suggest people. That's why you get lots of people cheering and making derisive noises - it's likely to be the members on each side. It doesn't tell you anything much about whichever location they happen to be in.
Very informative. Perhaps that should be posted up front like a health warning on fags (Brit - informal). Should not the BBC be "correcting" this so that ordinary folk are represented rather than tribal geeks?
Like I said last night, how many "ordinary folk" want to waste their time watching talentless politicians and shit-stirring journos shouting at each other on TV at that time of night - let alone go to sit on an uncomfortable chair in a draughty hall for hours on end for the privilege of being subjected to it?
QT could, arguably, be a much better programme if advanced to a prime slot - on the news channel, mind you, not getting in the way of people's favourite soaps and such like - with a proper discussion of three or four questions submitted by the viewers at home, and without the useless studio audience.
Any local knowledge on Loxwood? Remainia or Leavistan?
My brother and father live that way.
Lots of Eastern European immigration but i'm surprised to see it change hands.
I have never heard of Loxwood but wikipedia makes it sound like a small town between Camberwick Green and Chigley.
"Loxwood is a small village and civil parish with several outlying settlements, including those at Alfold Bars, Gunshot Common, Flitchfold, Roundstreet Common, Drungewick Lane and Manor, and Wephurst Park"
At first I thought you had mistyped Camberwell Green, then I read the post properly!
Labours manifesto seems to be going down like a bowl of cold sick in Bolton on Question Time?
Mildly encouraging if true. One does rather gather the impression that QT audiences are disproportionately comprised of lefties.
Any decent small c-conservative would be safely at home with a cup of tea, or perhaps cocoa, if not already in bed by this time of night.
I’m not watching but just received a message from someone who couldn’t believe how much people seemed to like the Labour policies on QT.
Who knows?
QT audiences are selected to a large extent by asking the local parties to suggest people. That's why you get lots of people cheering and making derisive noises - it's likely to be the members on each side. It doesn't tell you anything much about whichever location they happen to be in.
Very informative. Perhaps that should be posted up front like a health warning on fags (Brit - informal). Should not the BBC be "correcting" this so that ordinary folk are represented rather than tribal geeks?
Like I said last night, how many "ordinary folk" want to waste their time watching talentless politicians and shit-stirring journos shouting at each other on TV at that time of night - let alone go to sit on an uncomfortable chair in a draughty hall for hours on end for the privilege of being subjected to it?
QT could, arguably, be a much better programme if advanced to a prime slot - on the news channel, mind you, not getting in the way of people's favourite soaps and such like - with a proper discussion of three or four questions submitted by the viewers at home, and without the useless studio audience.
You know the politicians who go on there are trying to get Affirmation by Whooping. If there was no audience, they would have to engage with their fellow panellists, without the inbuilt clapometer telling them they have won the point already - with their tribal part of the audience.
As with the SNP - "Free Stuff" benefits the better off:
"Labour’s manifesto includes a £600 million promise to scrap prescription charges in England. Broadly speaking, the old, the young, the poor, the disabled and the chronically sick are already exempt from charges: as a result 89% of prescriptions last year were provided free. The main beneficiaries of Labour’s policy to make the remaining 11% free of charge are therefore likely to be working-age people of reasonable financial means, and who are not chronically sick."
Away you halfwit , it costs more to administer the stupid prescription charges than giving it free. The 11% who pay are providing most of the cash for the 89% who get it free as well as paying their own many times over. You Tories hate decent policies.
Hypothetical polls - worth less than the paper they are written on.
At some point, people are going to have to start entertaining the idea that Johnson and Cummings might actually know what they're doing.
Hopefully after Dec 12.
There's a wonderful aphorism by Warren Buffett that I'm a great believer of that goes something like this:
"When a management with a reputation for brilliance takes over a business with a reputation for poor performance, it is the reputation of the business that remains intact."
We humans like simple stories. Our brains are hardwired to believe them. Dominic Cummings is the superhero in this tale: with insight, and brilliance and intelligence.
The reality is simpler. People, even most Remainers, want Brexit done. Corbyn is a dangerous joke. Johnson is like syphilis when the alternative is herpes. At least you know that you can get rid of him without too many consequences later.
But Boris Johnson is a man who sways in the slightest breath of wind if he sees a second of advantage. (And by advantage, I mean one second longer in power.) Like Tony Blair, who I sadly think he resembles, he is a man with only a passing interest in the truth.
And he is likely to be handed a large majority. Not because of the brilliance of Cummings, but because he's in the right place at the right time.
Maybe I'm too pessimistic. (He's certainly better than the alternatives.) But I fear that the next five years are not going to go well for the UK.
Some other aphorisms seem potentially apposite here - the one about it being better to be lucky than skilful, for one. Possibly also the one about the golfer who seemed to get luckier the more he practiced.
It's totally plausible that Johnson is just a chancer with a bunch of advantages from birth that are responsible for almost all his achievements. But, he's been doing this a while now, and whatever he's doing does seem to be working.
Hypothetical polls - worth less than the paper they are written on.
At some point, people are going to have to start entertaining the idea that Johnson and Cummings might actually know what they're doing.
Hopefully after Dec 12.
There's a wonderful aphorism by Warren Buffett that I'm a great believer of that goes something like this:
"When a management with a reputation for brilliance takes over a business with a reputation for poor performance, it is the reputation of the business that remains intact."
We humans like simple stories. Our brains are hardwired to believe them. Dominic Cummings is the superhero in this tale: with insight, and brilliance and intelligence.
The reality is simpler. People, even most Remainers, want Brexit done. Corbyn is a dangerous joke. Johnson is like syphilis when the alternative is herpes. At least you know that you can get rid of him without too many consequences later.
But Boris Johnson is a man who sways in the slightest breath of wind if he sees a second of advantage. (And by advantage, I mean one second longer in power.) Like Tony Blair, who I sadly think he resembles, he is a man with only a passing interest in the truth.
And he is likely to be handed a large majority. Not because of the brilliance of Cummings, but because he's in the right place at the right time.
Maybe I'm too pessimistic. (He's certainly better than the alternatives.) But I fear that the next five years are not going to go well for the UK.
I predict this will be Jose’s argument come March.
That is my breakfast coming back up them, what a mush to see first thing in the morning. Maybe help if she got on with her day job for once instead of lining her pockets outside parliament.
I sense a more nervous reaction to Labours than last time, though with a word of caution there were a lot of people who thought the 2017 document holed them before the waterline (myself included) and a dose of humble pie was required.
£83bn - let's say that's true and forget it's a lowball.
From that £23bn is raised on corporations by increasing corporation tax, this will apparently have no negative impact on employment or investment. Sure.
£60bn comes from those earning more than £80k. There are around 1.3m people who earn more than that in the UK. Quite simply there aren't enough people to get that kind of money from. It works out to an average tax rise of over £40,000 per person in that wage bracket.
This manifesto is fantasy. Nothing in it is credible and anyone who chooses to vote for Labour for any reason is part of that fantasyland.
After three years of Brexit we are now used to utterly fantastical politics.
£83bn - let's say that's true and forget it's a lowball.
From that £23bn is raised on corporations by increasing corporation tax, this will apparently have no negative impact on employment or investment. Sure.
£60bn comes from those earning more than £80k. There are around 1.3m people who earn more than that in the UK. Quite simply there aren't enough people to get that kind of money from. It works out to an average tax rise of over £40,000 per person in that wage bracket.
This manifesto is fantasy. Nothing in it is credible and anyone who chooses to vote for Labour for any reason is part of that fantasyland.
After three years of Brexit we are now used to utterly fantastical politics.
True, but every now and then, as with the tech investment figures yesterday, reality breaks through.
£83bn - let's say that's true and forget it's a lowball.
From that £23bn is raised on corporations by increasing corporation tax, this will apparently have no negative impact on employment or investment. Sure.
£60bn comes from those earning more than £80k. There are around 1.3m people who earn more than that in the UK. Quite simply there aren't enough people to get that kind of money from. It works out to an average tax rise of over £40,000 per person in that wage bracket.
This manifesto is fantasy. Nothing in it is credible and anyone who chooses to vote for Labour for any reason is part of that fantasyland.
Looking at the detail, the vast majority is supposed to come from corporations - not high earners.
1. Increase tax on 80k+ = 5.4bn. 2. Corporation tax cuts reverse = 23.7bn. 3. Unitary tax of multinationals = 6.3bn. 4. Taxing investment income as other income = 14bn. 5. Financial transactions tax = 8.8bn 6. Tax avoidance and evasion = 6.2bn 7. Corporate tax reliefs review = 4.3bn 8. R&D funding reform = 4.0bn 9. Reverse cuts to inheritance tax and Bank Levy, impose VAT on private school fees, scrap Married Persons Allowance, introduce a second homes tax = 5.2bn 10. Additional tax revenue from fiscal multiplier = 5bn
Most of those changes look sensible to me. Even Boris has implicitly accepted the principle behind increasing corporation tax.
Why the fuck was Fiona Bunce not stepping in to point out the member of the public was a total fucking Moron?
That was absolutely excruciating to watch.
Why couldn't Burgon step in the o point out he was a moron.
Firstly its Fiona Bruce, secondly, he is probably a plumber or an electrician, an artisan, and the message is going to get across that irrespective of whether this man and others like him are in the top 5% ., Labour are going to screw them
Why the fuck was Fiona Bunce not stepping in to point out the member of the public was a total fucking Moron?
That was absolutely excruciating to watch.
Why couldn't Burgon step in the o point out he was a moron.
Blimey, Burgon is correct here.
Burgon flubed hard here. He should have have the stats to hand to point out the median wage is 22 grand and the mean around 30 grand.
But I have a lot of sympathy in the face of such idiocy. The women next to the questioner goig "absolute rubbish" when Burgon said he only earned 40 grand as a solicitor was the shit cherry on top of the poo cake.
Why couldn't Burgon step in the o point out he was a moron.
There is a saying, ‘takes one to know one.’
This is not true of morons, who are simply too thick to recognise each other.
You're not allowed to call the audience moronic as a politician even if it's true.
Anyway if that chap is a Doctor I'm glad he's not mine. I doubt he has any idea of how Bayes works for instance with that piss poor grasp of statistics
Will be interesting to see which taxes the Tories propose raising. I wonder whether they'll duck that issue by pretending there's a Brexit dividend, or just saying economic growth will pay for it all.
£83bn - let's say that's true and forget it's a lowball.
From that £23bn is raised on corporations by increasing corporation tax, this will apparently have no negative impact on employment or investment. Sure.
£60bn comes from those earning more than £80k. There are around 1.3m people who earn more than that in the UK. Quite simply there aren't enough people to get that kind of money from. It works out to an average tax rise of over £40,000 per person in that wage bracket.
This manifesto is fantasy. Nothing in it is credible and anyone who chooses to vote for Labour for any reason is part of that fantasyland.
Looking at the detail, the vast majority is supposed to come from corporations - not high earners.
1. Increase tax on 80k+ = 5.4bn. 2. Corporation tax cuts reverse = 23.7bn. 3. Unitary tax of multinationals = 6.3bn. 4. Taxing investment income as other income = 14bn. 5. Financial transactions tax = 8.8bn 6. Tax avoidance and evasion = 6.2bn 7. Corporate tax reliefs review = 4.3bn 8. R&D funding reform = 4.0bn 9. Reverse cuts to inheritance tax and Bank Levy, impose VAT on private school fees, scrap Married Persons Allowance, introduce a second homes tax = 5.2bn 10. Additional tax revenue from fiscal multiplier = 5bn
Most of those changes look sensible to me. Even Boris has implicitly accepted the principle behind increasing corporation tax.
Given the state of things, the view that taxation is sure to rise whoever is elected, the only question being the extent to which politicians are prepared now to set out how - is not unrealistic.
Why the fuck was Fiona Bunce not stepping in to point out the member of the public was a total fucking Moron?
That was absolutely excruciating to watch.
Why couldn't Burgon step in the o point out he was a moron.
Firstly its Fiona Bruce, secondly, he is probably a plumber or an electrician, an artisan, and the message is going to get across that irrespective of whether this man and others like him are in the top 5% ., Labour are going to screw them
But I have a lot of sympathy in the face of such idiocy. The women next to the questioner goig "absolute rubbish" when Burgon said he only earned 40 grand as a solicitor was the shit cherry on top of the poo cake.
TBF, given what a fool he is it’s surprising he earned anything at all as a solicitor.
Why couldn't Burgon step in the o point out he was a moron.
There is a saying, ‘takes one to know one.’
This is not true of morons, who are simply too thick to recognise each other.
You're not allowed to call the audience moronic as a politician even if it's true.
Anyway if that chap is a Doctor I'm glad he's not mine. I doubt he has any idea of how Bayes works for instance with that piss poor grasp of statistics
It’s a common failing. A few years ago an amateur historian tried to invent a new historical method based on Bayesian reasoning. He confused frequency and probability.
Why couldn't Burgon step in the o point out he was a moron.
There is a saying, ‘takes one to know one.’
This is not true of morons, who are simply too thick to recognise each other.
You're not allowed to call the audience moronic as a politician even if it's true.
Anyway if that chap is a Doctor I'm glad he's not mine. I doubt he has any idea of how Bayes works for instance with that piss poor grasp of statistics
I think we can be certain he isn't given he would probably have some grasp of a Doctor's salary if he was.
Why the fuck was Fiona Bunce not stepping in to point out the member of the public was a total fucking Moron?
That was absolutely excruciating to watch.
Why couldn't Burgon step in the o point out he was a moron.
Blimey, Burgon is correct here.
Burgon flubed hard here. He should have have the stats to hand to point out the median wage is 22 grand and the mean around 30 grand.
But I have a lot of sympathy in the face of such idiocy. The women next to the questioner goig "absolute rubbish" when Burgon said he only earned 40 grand as a solicitor was the shit cherry on top of the poo cake.
What you are missing is... it doesn't matter a damn how thick a voter is, if people like that guy think Labour are going to screw them, others in a similar position are going to think exactly the same. 80k is good money, but its not huge... and people like him are paying a feck of a lot of tax anyway.
Its the same principle of people hating inheritance tax, even if they are never going to pay any on pay any, they instinctively hate the tax.
Why couldn't Burgon step in the o point out he was a moron.
There is a saying, ‘takes one to know one.’
This is not true of morons, who are simply too thick to recognise each other.
You're not allowed to call the audience moronic as a politician even if it's true.
Anyway if that chap is a Doctor I'm glad he's not mine. I doubt he has any idea of how Bayes works for instance with that piss poor grasp of statistics
I think we can be certain he isn't given he would probably have some grasp of a Doctor's salary if he was.
Why the fuck was Fiona Bunce not stepping in to point out the member of the public was a total fucking Moron?
That was absolutely excruciating to watch.
Why couldn't Burgon step in the o point out he was a moron.
Firstly its Fiona Bruce, secondly, he is probably a plumber or an electrician, an artisan, and the message is going to get across that irrespective of whether this man and others like him are in the top 5% ., Labour are going to screw them
Why the fuck was Fiona Bunce not stepping in to point out the member of the public was a total fucking Moron?
That was absolutely excruciating to watch.
Why couldn't Burgon step in the o point out he was a moron.
Blimey, Burgon is correct here.
Burgon flubed hard here. He should have have the stats to hand to point out the median wage is 22 grand and the mean around 30 grand.
But I have a lot of sympathy in the face of such idiocy. The women next to the questioner goig "absolute rubbish" when Burgon said he only earned 40 grand as a solicitor was the shit cherry on top of the poo cake.
What you are missing is... it doesn't matter a damn how thick a voter is, if people like that guy think Labour are going to screw them, others in a similar position are going to think exactly the same. 80k is good money, but its not huge... and people like him are paying a feck of a lot of tax anyway.
Its the same principle of people hating inheritance tax, even if they are never going to pay any on pay any, they instinctively hate the tax.
I sense a more nervous reaction to Labours than last time, though with a word of caution there were a lot of people who thought the 2017 document holed them before the waterline (myself included) and a dose of humble pie was required.
It scares the living bejesus out of me. Not because it increases their chance of success, I don’t think it does, but what would actually happen if they did win.
Why couldn't Burgon step in the o point out he was a moron.
There is a saying, ‘takes one to know one.’
This is not true of morons, who are simply too thick to recognise each other.
You're not allowed to call the audience moronic as a politician even if it's true.
Anyway if that chap is a Doctor I'm glad he's not mine. I doubt he has any idea of how Bayes works for instance with that piss poor grasp of statistics
I think we live in a great country. A place where a innumerate and argumentative man who cannot even choose the correct sized clothes, living in a provincial town can earn £80 000 per year.
Why couldn't Burgon step in the o point out he was a moron.
There is a saying, ‘takes one to know one.’
This is not true of morons, who are simply too thick to recognise each other.
You're not allowed to call the audience moronic as a politician even if it's true.
Anyway if that chap is a Doctor I'm glad he's not mine. I doubt he has any idea of how Bayes works for instance with that piss poor grasp of statistics
I think we live in a great country. A place where a innumerate and argumentative man who cannot even choose the correct sized clothes, living in a provincial town can earn £80 000 per year.
The annoying thing about that would be however that despite all that he earns more than me.
What you are missing is... it doesn't matter a damn how thick a voter is, if people like that guy think Labour are going to screw them, others in a similar position are going to think exactly the same. 80k is good money, but its not huge... and people like him are paying a feck of a lot of tax anyway.
Its the same principle of people hating inheritance tax, even if they are never going to pay any on pay any, they instinctively hate the tax.
People know how much they earn personally though. You can hear the silent doubt of the audience when he says he earns more than 80k and that that doesn't put him in the top 5%.
If Labour can get into an argument on the 80k figure, I think that will help them.
That bloke is an excellent example of rich people hanging out with rich people and therefore thinking he's normal.
Why the fuck was Fiona Bunce not stepping in to point out the member of the public was a total fucking Moron?
That was absolutely excruciating to watch.
Why couldn't Burgon step in the o point out he was a moron.
Blimey, Burgon is correct here.
Burgon flubed hard here. He should have have the stats to hand to point out the median wage is 22 grand and the mean around 30 grand.
But I have a lot of sympathy in the face of such idiocy. The women next to the questioner goig "absolute rubbish" when Burgon said he only earned 40 grand as a solicitor was the shit cherry on top of the poo cake.
What you are missing is... it doesn't matter a damn how thick a voter is, if people like that guy think Labour are going to screw them, others in a similar position are going to think exactly the same. 80k is good money, but its not huge... and people like him are paying a feck of a lot of tax anyway.
Its the same principle of people hating inheritance tax, even if they are never going to pay any on pay any, they instinctively hate the tax.
Any half arsed self employed plumber or builder is going to be around that mark. But their accountant wouldn’t be so daft to have them on paye.
Why couldn't Burgon step in the o point out he was a moron.
There is a saying, ‘takes one to know one.’
This is not true of morons, who are simply too thick to recognise each other.
You're not allowed to call the audience moronic as a politician even if it's true.
Anyway if that chap is a Doctor I'm glad he's not mine. I doubt he has any idea of how Bayes works for instance with that piss poor grasp of statistics
I think we live in a great country. A place where a innumerate and argumentative man who cannot even choose the correct sized clothes, living in a provincial town can earn £80 000 per year.
Why couldn't Burgon step in the o point out he was a moron.
There is a saying, ‘takes one to know one.’
This is not true of morons, who are simply too thick to recognise each other.
You're not allowed to call the audience moronic as a politician even if it's true.
Anyway if that chap is a Doctor I'm glad he's not mine. I doubt he has any idea of how Bayes works for instance with that piss poor grasp of statistics
I think we live in a great country. A place where a innumerate and argumentative man who cannot even choose the correct sized clothes, living in a provincial town can earn £80 000 per year.
What you are missing is... it doesn't matter a damn how thick a voter is, if people like that guy think Labour are going to screw them, others in a similar position are going to think exactly the same. 80k is good money, but its not huge... and people like him are paying a feck of a lot of tax anyway.
Its the same principle of people hating inheritance tax, even if they are never going to pay any on pay any, they instinctively hate the tax.
People know how much they earn personally though. You can hear the silent doubt of the audience when he says he earns more than 80k and that that doesn't put him in the top 5%.
If Labour can get into an argument on the 80k figure, I think that will help them.
That bloke is an excellent example of rich people hanging out with rich people and therefore thinking he's normal.
Not so silent doubt, the audience heckle him and tell him he is in the top 5%
Fair play I had also missed Bunce muttering that she thought the man was wrong.
Why the fuck was Fiona Bunce not stepping in to point out the member of the public was a total fucking Moron?
That was absolutely excruciating to watch.
Why couldn't Burgon step in the o point out he was a moron.
Firstly its Fiona Bruce, secondly, he is probably a plumber or an electrician, an artisan, and the message is going to get across that irrespective of whether this man and others like him are in the top 5% ., Labour are going to screw them
He says he is on PAYE as an employee.
The tabloids will doubtless getto the bottom of it in a day or two
What you are missing is... it doesn't matter a damn how thick a voter is, if people like that guy think Labour are going to screw them, others in a similar position are going to think exactly the same. 80k is good money, but its not huge... and people like him are paying a feck of a lot of tax anyway.
Its the same principle of people hating inheritance tax, even if they are never going to pay any on pay any, they instinctively hate the tax.
People know how much they earn personally though. You can hear the silent doubt of the audience when he says he earns more than 80k and that that doesn't put him in the top 5%.
If Labour can get into an argument on the 80k figure, I think that will help them.
That bloke is an excellent example of rich people hanging out with rich people and therefore thinking he's normal.
Not so silent doubt, the audience heckle him and tell him he is in the top 5%
Fair play I had also missed Bunce muttering that she thought the man was wrong.
Anyone know why Brexit Party are standing in Norfolk North? They arent going to peel off any LD votes. Taking labour votes is irrelevant. Just makes it more difficult for Con to take a very winnable leave-voting seat with Norman Lamb standing down.
The man on £80k was indicator our world where strongly held opinions carry more weight than facts. You can’t argue with them, they will never admit they are wrong.
Why does nobody ever point out that taking money out of large companies, raising taxes on investments/ Dividends, basically attacking “greedy“ shareholders has a direct on every single person with a direct interest in personal pension funds, and an indirect interest in public sector fund backed pensions?
£83bn - let's say that's true and forget it's a lowball.
From that £23bn is raised on corporations by increasing corporation tax, this will apparently have no negative impact on employment or investment. Sure.
£60bn comes from those earning more than £80k. There are around 1.3m people who earn more than that in the UK. Quite simply there aren't enough people to get that kind of money from. It works out to an average tax rise of over £40,000 per person in that wage bracket.
This manifesto is fantasy. Nothing in it is credible and anyone who chooses to vote for Labour for any reason is part of that fantasyland.
Looking at the detail, the vast majority is supposed to come from corporations - not high earners.
1. Increase tax on 80k+ = 5.4bn. 2. Corporation tax cuts reverse = 23.7bn. 3. Unitary tax of multinationals = 6.3bn. 4. Taxing investment income as other income = 14bn. 5. Financial transactions tax = 8.8bn 6. Tax avoidance and evasion = 6.2bn 7. Corporate tax reliefs review = 4.3bn 8. R&D funding reform = 4.0bn 9. Reverse cuts to inheritance tax and Bank Levy, impose VAT on private school fees, scrap Married Persons Allowance, introduce a second homes tax = 5.2bn 10. Additional tax revenue from fiscal multiplier = 5bn
Most of those changes look sensible to me. Even Boris has implicitly accepted the principle behind increasing corporation tax.
Total corporation tax take last year was £57 billion (it was £40 billion in 2014). Not sure how you can suck a further £28 billion out of corporation tax, it’s essentially a doubling of the tax take.
You can’t double a tax take without substantial behavioural change.
Why the fuck was Fiona Bunce not stepping in to point out the member of the public was a total fucking Moron?
That was absolutely excruciating to watch.
Why couldn't Burgon step in the o point out he was a moron.
Firstly its Fiona Bruce, secondly, he is probably a plumber or an electrician, an artisan, and the message is going to get across that irrespective of whether this man and others like him are in the top 5% ., Labour are going to screw them
He says he is on PAYE as an employee.
The tabloids will doubtless getto the bottom of it in a day or two
We need to get FactCheckUK on the case. Does anyone know their number?
Anyone know why Brexit Party are standing in Norfolk North? They arent going to peel off any LD votes. Taking labour votes is irrelevant. Just makes it more difficult for Con to take a very winnable leave-voting seat with Norman Lamb standing down.
Because the decision not to stand in Tory seats got Farage so much internal flak that they daren't take a step further to help the Tories
It seems to me that the Labour manifesto is largely slogans masquerading as policy. Virtually every single complaint or criticism made of any area of govt influenced activity finds a place somewhere, as if every criticism is driven by evil malicious forces, rather than mainly being a genuine reflection that Govt is complicated, requires choices, trade offs, rationalisation, prioritisation with no easy solutions etc etc. And all can be solved with more money and a few centrally mandated Govt directives.
£83bn - let's say that's true and forget it's a lowball.
From that £23bn is raised on corporations by increasing corporation tax, this will apparently have no negative impact on employment or investment. Sure.
£60bn comes from those earning more than £80k. There are around 1.3m people who earn more than that in the UK. Quite simply there aren't enough people to get that kind of money from. It works out to an average tax rise of over £40,000 per person in that wage bracket.
This manifesto is fantasy. Nothing in it is credible and anyone who chooses to vote for Labour for any reason is part of that fantasyland.
Looking at the detail, the vast majority is supposed to come from corporations - not high earners.
1. Increase tax on 80k+ = 5.4bn. 2. Corporation tax cuts reverse = 23.7bn. 3. Unitary tax of multinationals = 6.3bn. 4. Taxing investment income as other income = 14bn. 5. Financial transactions tax = 8.8bn 6. Tax avoidance and evasion = 6.2bn 7. Corporate tax reliefs review = 4.3bn 8. R&D funding reform = 4.0bn 9. Reverse cuts to inheritance tax and Bank Levy, impose VAT on private school fees, scrap Married Persons Allowance, introduce a second homes tax = 5.2bn 10. Additional tax revenue from fiscal multiplier = 5bn
Most of those changes look sensible to me. Even Boris has implicitly accepted the principle behind increasing corporation tax.
Isn't there some double counting in there? If there's no tax relief on R&D, then profits will be lower, so less corporation tax. Ditto with financial transactions.
The man on £80k was indicator our world where strongly held opinions carry more weight than facts. You can’t argue with them, they will never admit they are wrong.
Why the fuck was Fiona Bunce not stepping in to point out the member of the public was a total fucking Moron?
That was absolutely excruciating to watch.
Why couldn't Burgon step in the o point out he was a moron.
Firstly its Fiona Bruce, secondly, he is probably a plumber or an electrician, an artisan, and the message is going to get across that irrespective of whether this man and others like him are in the top 5% ., Labour are going to screw them
He says he is on PAYE as an employee.
The tabloids will doubtless getto the bottom of it in a day or two
We need to get FactCheckUK on the case. Does anyone know their number?
Why couldn't Burgon step in the o point out he was a moron.
There is a saying, ‘takes one to know one.’
This is not true of morons, who are simply too thick to recognise each other.
You're not allowed to call the audience moronic as a politician even if it's true.
Anyway if that chap is a Doctor I'm glad he's not mine. I doubt he has any idea of how Bayes works for instance with that piss poor grasp of statistics
I think we live in a great country. A place where a innumerate and argumentative man who cannot even choose the correct sized clothes, living in a provincial town can earn £80 000 per year.
The annoying thing about that would be however that despite all that he earns more than me.
Secondary school teachers are underpaid compared to GPs I think.
Why the fuck was Fiona Bunce not stepping in to point out the member of the public was a total fucking Moron?
That was absolutely excruciating to watch.
Why couldn't Burgon step in the o point out he was a moron.
Blimey, Burgon is correct here.
Burgon flubed hard here. He should have have the stats to hand to point out the median wage is 22 grand and the mean around 30 grand.
But I have a lot of sympathy in the face of such idiocy. The women next to the questioner goig "absolute rubbish" when Burgon said he only earned 40 grand as a solicitor was the shit cherry on top of the poo cake.
What you are missing is... it doesn't matter a damn how thick a voter is, if people like that guy think Labour are going to screw them, others in a similar position are going to think exactly the same. 80k is good money, but its not huge... and people like him are paying a feck of a lot of tax anyway.
Its the same principle of people hating inheritance tax, even if they are never going to pay any on pay any, they instinctively hate the tax.
Eighty grand is fucking huge mate.
It is a nice income, but you might be surprised how tax erodes the difference significantly.
A long serving teacher without any special enhancements will be on £40k. Double that to £80k only brings in an extra £24k after tax.
Why couldn't Burgon step in the o point out he was a moron.
There is a saying, ‘takes one to know one.’
This is not true of morons, who are simply too thick to recognise each other.
You're not allowed to call the audience moronic as a politician even if it's true.
Anyway if that chap is a Doctor I'm glad he's not mine. I doubt he has any idea of how Bayes works for instance with that piss poor grasp of statistics
I think we live in a great country. A place where a innumerate and argumentative man who cannot even choose the correct sized clothes, living in a provincial town can earn £80 000 per year.
The annoying thing about that would be however that despite all that he earns more than me.
Pay and earnings have little or nothing to do with merit, need or deserving. Often not a lot to do with qualifications or intelligence either. They are set by society and what people are willing to pay for those services.
I earn more than that fellow, but would happily do my work for less. It is important to enjoy your working life, and to do a job of benefit to others. Man cannot live by bread alone.
Or as my mother once put it in her Lancashire way: "Virtue is it's own reward, which is just as well as it rarely gets rewarded otherwise"
£83bn - let's say that's true and forget it's a lowball.
From that £23bn is raised on corporations by increasing corporation tax, this will apparently have no negative impact on employment or investment. Sure.
£60bn comes from those earning more than £80k. There are around 1.3m people who earn more than that in the UK. Quite simply there aren't enough people to get that kind of money from. It works out to an average tax rise of over £40,000 per person in that wage bracket.
This manifesto is fantasy. Nothing in it is credible and anyone who chooses to vote for Labour for any reason is part of that fantasyland.
Looking at the detail, the vast majority is supposed to come from corporations - not high earners.
1. Increase tax on 80k+ = 5.4bn. 2. Corporation tax cuts reverse = 23.7bn. 3. Unitary tax of multinationals = 6.3bn. 4. Taxing investment income as other income = 14bn. 5. Financial transactions tax = 8.8bn 6. Tax avoidance and evasion = 6.2bn 7. Corporate tax reliefs review = 4.3bn 8. R&D funding reform = 4.0bn 9. Reverse cuts to inheritance tax and Bank Levy, impose VAT on private school fees, scrap Married Persons Allowance, introduce a second homes tax = 5.2bn 10. Additional tax revenue from fiscal multiplier = 5bn
Most of those changes look sensible to me. Even Boris has implicitly accepted the principle behind increasing corporation tax.
Isn't there some double counting in there? If there's no tax relief on R&D, then profits will be lower, so less corporation tax. Ditto with financial transactions.
With all those taxes on corporations why would anyone invest in this country?
Which would somewhat have an impact on employment rates, PAYE, NICs etc you would think. Instead they're magicking up some money from "fiscal multiplier" - have they never heard of Deadweight Loss?
£83bn - let's say that's true and forget it's a lowball.
From that £23bn is raised on corporations by increasing corporation tax, this will apparently have no negative impact on employment or investment. Sure.
£60bn comes from those earning more than £80k. There are around 1.3m people who earn more than that in the UK. Quite simply there aren't enough people to get that kind of money from. It works out to an average tax rise of over £40,000 per person in that wage bracket.
This manifesto is fantasy. Nothing in it is credible and anyone who chooses to vote for Labour for any reason is part of that fantasyland.
Looking at the detail, the vast majority is supposed to come from corporations - not high earners.
1. Increase tax on 80k+ = 5.4bn. 2. Corporation tax cuts reverse = 23.7bn. 3. Unitary tax of multinationals = 6.3bn. 4. Taxing investment income as other income = 14bn. 5. Financial transactions tax = 8.8bn 6. Tax avoidance and evasion = 6.2bn 7. Corporate tax reliefs review = 4.3bn 8. R&D funding reform = 4.0bn 9. Reverse cuts to inheritance tax and Bank Levy, impose VAT on private school fees, scrap Married Persons Allowance, introduce a second homes tax = 5.2bn 10. Additional tax revenue from fiscal multiplier = 5bn
Most of those changes look sensible to me. Even Boris has implicitly accepted the principle behind increasing corporation tax.
Total corporation tax take last year was £57 billion (it was £40 billion in 2014). Not sure how you can suck a further £28 billion out of corporation tax, it’s essentially a doubling of the tax take.
You can’t double a tax take without substantial behavioural change.
Oops. A Burgon level of maths there. I mean half again, not doubling...
Why the fuck was Fiona Bunce not stepping in to point out the member of the public was a total fucking Moron?
That was absolutely excruciating to watch.
Why couldn't Burgon step in the o point out he was a moron.
Blimey, Burgon is correct here.
Burgon flubed hard here. He should have have the stats to hand to point out the median wage is 22 grand and the mean around 30 grand.
But I have a lot of sympathy in the face of such idiocy. The women next to the questioner goig "absolute rubbish" when Burgon said he only earned 40 grand as a solicitor was the shit cherry on top of the poo cake.
What you are missing is... it doesn't matter a damn how thick a voter is, if people like that guy think Labour are going to screw them, others in a similar position are going to think exactly the same. 80k is good money, but its not huge... and people like him are paying a feck of a lot of tax anyway.
Its the same principle of people hating inheritance tax, even if they are never going to pay any on pay any, they instinctively hate the tax.
Eighty grand is fucking huge mate.
It is a nice income, but you might be surprised how tax erodes the difference significantly.
A long serving teacher without any special enhancements will be on £40k. Double that to £80k only brings in an extra £24k after tax.
Bit misleading to compare what a £40k earner gets before tax with what an 80k earner gets after tax...
If you’re on 40k the you will get around 30k after tax I think...?
Why does nobody ever point out that taking money out of large companies, raising taxes on investments/ Dividends, basically attacking “greedy“ shareholders has a direct on every single person with a direct interest in personal pension funds, and an indirect interest in public sector fund backed pensions?
The case for pension funds is essentially the same as for individuals - if you organise the economy on the basis of low public investment, low pay and high dependence on an underskilled workforce, you will bump along with 1% growth indefinitely; if Britain is more dynamically managed you may have a slightly lower share of the cake but it'll be a bigger cake.
Why the fuck was Fiona Bunce not stepping in to point out the member of the public was a total fucking Moron?
That was absolutely excruciating to watch.
Why couldn't Burgon step in the o point out he was a moron.
Blimey, Burgon is correct here.
Burgon flubed hard here. He should have have the stats to hand to point out the median wage is 22 grand and the mean around 30 grand.
But I have a lot of sympathy in the face of such idiocy. The women next to the questioner goig "absolute rubbish" when Burgon said he only earned 40 grand as a solicitor was the shit cherry on top of the poo cake.
What you are missing is... it doesn't matter a damn how thick a voter is, if people like that guy think Labour are going to screw them, others in a similar position are going to think exactly the same. 80k is good money, but its not huge... and people like him are paying a feck of a lot of tax anyway.
Its the same principle of people hating inheritance tax, even if they are never going to pay any on pay any, they instinctively hate the tax.
Eighty grand is fucking huge mate.
It is a nice income, but you might be surprised how tax erodes the difference significantly.
A long serving teacher without any special enhancements will be on £40k. Double that to £80k only brings in an extra £24k after tax.
Yes mate, but your base living expenses don't increase as your wage increases mate so your disposable income is massively higher compared to someone on 40 grand.
As we've established 80 k puts you in the top 5%. That's top whack mate no matter how you cut it.
The immediate danger of labour to people on normal wages isn't the tax policy, it's the interest rate rises that will be needed to prop up sterling with such profligate spending on the horizon, or imported inflation via weaker sterling
Why does nobody ever point out that taking money out of large companies, raising taxes on investments/ Dividends, basically attacking “greedy“ shareholders has a direct on every single person with a direct interest in personal pension funds, and an indirect interest in public sector fund backed pensions?
The case for pension funds is essentially the same as for individuals - if you organise the economy on the basis of low public investment, low pay and high dependence on an underskilled workforce, you will bump along with 1% growth indefinitely; if Britain is more dynamically managed you may have a slightly lower share of the cake but it'll be a bigger cake.
And you think thwacking up taxes on R&D of all things, taxes on financial transactions, taxes on corporations, taxes on investments etc etc etc is going to lead to a more dynamically managed economy?
Why the fuck was Fiona Bunce not stepping in to point out the member of the public was a total fucking Moron?
That was absolutely excruciating to watch.
Why couldn't Burgon step in the o point out he was a moron.
Blimey, Burgon is correct here.
Burgon flubed hard here. He should have have the stats to hand to point out the median wage is 22 grand and the mean around 30 grand.
But I have a lot of sympathy in the face of such idiocy. The women next to the questioner goig "absolute rubbish" when Burgon said he only earned 40 grand as a solicitor was the shit cherry on top of the poo cake.
What you are missing is... it doesn't matter a damn how thick a voter is, if people like that guy think Labour are going to screw them, others in a similar position are going to think exactly the same. 80k is good money, but its not huge... and people like him are paying a feck of a lot of tax anyway.
Its the same principle of people hating inheritance tax, even if they are never going to pay any on pay any, they instinctively hate the tax.
Eighty grand is fucking huge mate.
Lots on here live in a dream world that the peasants get 80K a year as a norm.
Why the fuck was Fiona Bunce not stepping in to point out the member of the public was a total fucking Moron?
That was absolutely excruciating to watch.
Why couldn't Burgon step in the o point out he was a moron.
Blimey, Burgon is correct here.
Burgon flubed hard here. He should have have the stats to hand to point out the median wage is 22 grand and the mean around 30 grand.
But I have a lot of sympathy in the face of such idiocy. The women next to the questioner goig "absolute rubbish" when Burgon said he only earned 40 grand as a solicitor was the shit cherry on top of the poo cake.
What you are missing is... it doesn't matter a damn how thick a voter is, if people like that guy think Labour are going to screw them, others in a similar position are going to think exactly the same. 80k is good money, but its not huge... and people like him are paying a feck of a lot of tax anyway.
Its the same principle of people hating inheritance tax, even if they are never going to pay any on pay any, they instinctively hate the tax.
Eighty grand is fucking huge mate.
It is a nice income, but you might be surprised how tax erodes the difference significantly.
A long serving teacher without any special enhancements will be on £40k. Double that to £80k only brings in an extra £24k after tax.
What tends to erode the difference for a significant proportion of households on those budgets is brands. Get a 90% the same car made in the same factory but with a different badge and pay an extra £5-20k. Get an Armani T-shirt instead of a Next T-shirt and pay 200% premium.
Easy to trade up but little benefit gained, and then people find it hard to trade down when finances require it. As we are not taught how to manage our finances, many do not significantly notice the benefit of "just" £24k after tax as it is often frittered away.
£83bn - let's say that's true and forget it's a lowball.
From that £23bn is raised on corporations by increasing corporation tax, this will apparently have no negative impact on employment or investment. Sure.
£60bn comes from those earning more than £80k. There are around 1.3m people who earn more than that in the UK. Quite simply there aren't enough people to get that kind of money from. It works out to an average tax rise of over £40,000 per person in that wage bracket.
This manifesto is fantasy. Nothing in it is credible and anyone who chooses to vote for Labour for any reason is part of that fantasyland.
After three years of Brexit we are now used to utterly fantastical politics.
So all Doctors are getting whacked on tax...that will attract more here wont it.
Why does nobody ever point out that taking money out of large companies, raising taxes on investments/ Dividends, basically attacking “greedy“ shareholders has a direct on every single person with a direct interest in personal pension funds, and an indirect interest in public sector fund backed pensions?
The case for pension funds is essentially the same as for individuals - if you organise the economy on the basis of low public investment, low pay and high dependence on an underskilled workforce, you will bump along with 1% growth indefinitely; if Britain is more dynamically managed you may have a slightly lower share of the cake but it'll be a bigger cake.
I’m not sure what point you are making? Are you arguing that Labour’s plans will actually increase the value of pension funds (individual or collective)?
Why the fuck was Fiona Bunce not stepping in to point out the member of the public was a total fucking Moron?
That was absolutely excruciating to watch.
Why couldn't Burgon step in the o point out he was a moron.
Blimey, Burgon is correct here.
Burgon flubed hard here. He should have have the stats to hand to point out the median wage is 22 grand and the mean around 30 grand.
But I have a lot of sympathy in the face of such idiocy. The women next to the questioner goig "absolute rubbish" when Burgon said he only earned 40 grand as a solicitor was the shit cherry on top of the poo cake.
What you are missing is... it doesn't matter a damn how thick a voter is, if people like that guy think Labour are going to screw them, others in a similar position are going to think exactly the same. 80k is good money, but its not huge... and people like him are paying a feck of a lot of tax anyway.
Its the same principle of people hating inheritance tax, even if they are never going to pay any on pay any, they instinctively hate the tax.
Eighty grand is fucking huge mate.
It is a nice income, but you might be surprised how tax erodes the difference significantly.
A long serving teacher without any special enhancements will be on £40k. Double that to £80k only brings in an extra £24k after tax.
Bit misleading to compare what a £40k earner gets before tax with what an 80k earner gets after tax...
If you’re on 40k the you will get around 30k after tax I think...?
What!! they both get the same up to £40K, a s stated he only showed the difference after £40K and overestimated as he missed out NI on the extra £40K
Why the fuck was Fiona Bunce not stepping in to point out the member of the public was a total fucking Moron?
That was absolutely excruciating to watch.
Why couldn't Burgon step in the o point out he was a moron.
Firstly its Fiona Bruce, secondly, he is probably a plumber or an electrician, an artisan, and the message is going to get across that irrespective of whether this man and others like him are in the top 5% ., Labour are going to screw them
He says he is on PAYE as an employee.
The tabloids will doubtless getto the bottom of it in a day or two
We need to get FactCheckUK on the case. Does anyone know their number?
The question that needs to be asked is does labour's manifesto appeal to more than 30% of the populace and will it attract conservatives which they need to increase their percentages, or does it scare them and others witless and there is a further move towards the conservatives. Furthermore will those who were toying with the lib dems now feel it is too much of a risk to do anthing but to vote conservative to keep Corbyn out
The polls over this weekend and throughout next week should give an indication
Why the fuck was Fiona Bunce not stepping in to point out the member of the public was a total fucking Moron?
That was absolutely excruciating to watch.
Why couldn't Burgon step in the o point out he was a moron.
Blimey, Burgon is correct here.
Burgon flubed hard here. He should have have the stats to hand to point out the median wage is 22 grand and the mean around 30 grand.
But I have a lot of sympathy in the face of such idiocy. The women next to the questioner goig "absolute rubbish" when Burgon said he only earned 40 grand as a solicitor was the shit cherry on top of the poo cake.
What you are missing is... it doesn't matter a damn how thick a voter is, if people like that guy think Labour are going to screw them, others in a similar position are going to think exactly the same. 80k is good money, but its not huge... and people like him are paying a feck of a lot of tax anyway.
Its the same principle of people hating inheritance tax, even if they are never going to pay any on pay any, they instinctively hate the tax.
Eighty grand is fucking huge mate.
It is a nice income, but you might be surprised how tax erodes the difference significantly.
A long serving teacher without any special enhancements will be on £40k. Double that to £80k only brings in an extra £24k after tax.
Bit misleading to compare what a £40k earner gets before tax with what an 80k earner gets after tax...
If you’re on 40k the you will get around 30k after tax I think...?
Also on 80k the tax on the extra £40k is almost optional, you can live on the normal £40k and get tax relief on the additional £40k through pensions, VCTs, EIS or SEIS.
£83bn - let's say that's true and forget it's a lowball.
From that £23bn is raised on corporations by increasing corporation tax, this will apparently have no negative impact on employment or investment. Sure.
£60bn comes from those earning more than £80k. There are around 1.3m people who earn more than that in the UK. Quite simply there aren't enough people to get that kind of money from. It works out to an average tax rise of over £40,000 per person in that wage bracket.
This manifesto is fantasy. Nothing in it is credible and anyone who chooses to vote for Labour for any reason is part of that fantasyland.
Looking at the detail, the vast majority is supposed to come from corporations - not high earners.
1. Increase tax on 80k+ = 5.4bn. 2. Corporation tax cuts reverse = 23.7bn. 3. Unitary tax of multinationals = 6.3bn. 4. Taxing investment income as other income = 14bn. 5. Financial transactions tax = 8.8bn 6. Tax avoidance and evasion = 6.2bn 7. Corporate tax reliefs review = 4.3bn 8. R&D funding reform = 4.0bn 9. Reverse cuts to inheritance tax and Bank Levy, impose VAT on private school fees, scrap Married Persons Allowance, introduce a second homes tax = 5.2bn 10. Additional tax revenue from fiscal multiplier = 5bn
Most of those changes look sensible to me. Even Boris has implicitly accepted the principle behind increasing corporation tax.
Given the state of things, the view that taxation is sure to rise whoever is elected, the only question being the extent to which politicians are prepared now to set out how - is not unrealistic.
I agree with that. Population ageing, the challenges of climate change and making up for decades of under investment in infrastructure and human capital are all going to cost money. And we are all going to have to pay for it. What irritates me about Labour's plan is the pretence that it doesn't require the average person to also pay more tax. As a fully signed up member of the 1% I am firmly of the opinion that the rich need to pay their share, and they have the broadest shoulders, but there is a limit beyond which some of them (not me) will fuck off. The whole attitude to tax in this country is wrong, from the wealthy with their tax planning all the way down to the builder with his cash in hand jobs. It's a privilege to pay tax - it's an investment in our country's future, a contribution to our essential services and a helping hand to those less fortunate. People need to stop being dicks about it.
Why does nobody ever point out that taking money out of large companies, raising taxes on investments/ Dividends, basically attacking “greedy“ shareholders has a direct on every single person with a direct interest in personal pension funds, and an indirect interest in public sector fund backed pensions?
The case for pension funds is essentially the same as for individuals - if you organise the economy on the basis of low public investment, low pay and high dependence on an underskilled workforce, you will bump along with 1% growth indefinitely; if Britain is more dynamically managed you may have a slightly lower share of the cake but it'll be a bigger cake.
why would employers bother training their workforce when they can just buy trained cheap labour from abroad ? Its one of the main drivers of our low productivity.
Why the fuck was Fiona Bunce not stepping in to point out the member of the public was a total fucking Moron?
That was absolutely excruciating to watch.
Why couldn't Burgon step in the o point out he was a moron.
Blimey, Burgon is correct here.
Burgon flubed hard here. He should have have the stats to hand to point out the median wage is 22 grand and the mean around 30 grand.
But I have a lot of sympathy in the face of such idiocy. The women next to the questioner goig "absolute rubbish" when Burgon said he only earned 40 grand as a solicitor was the shit cherry on top of the poo cake.
What you are missing is... it doesn't matter a damn how thick a voter is, if people like that guy think Labour are going to screw them, others in a similar position are going to think exactly the same. 80k is good money, but its not huge... and people like him are paying a feck of a lot of tax anyway.
Its the same principle of people hating inheritance tax, even if they are never going to pay any on pay any, they instinctively hate the tax.
Eighty grand is fucking huge mate.
It is a nice income, but you might be surprised how tax erodes the difference significantly.
A long serving teacher without any special enhancements will be on £40k. Double that to £80k only brings in an extra £24k after tax.
What tends to erode the difference for a significant proportion of households on those budgets is brands. Get a 90% the same car made in the same factory but with a different badge and pay an extra £5-20k. Get an Armani T-shirt instead of a Next T-shirt and pay 200% premium.
Easy to trade up but little benefit gained, and then people find it hard to trade down when finances require it. As we are not taught how to manage our finances, many do not significantly notice the benefit of "just" £24k after tax as it is often frittered away.
Our household income will be just under £100k, but I shop at Aldi, Morrisons and Asda, will scavenge around for a yellow whoops sticker and religiously screw down my utility and insurance companies. However, if I choose to fritter away my ‘surplus income’ I’m still doing a better job than handing it to the government to fritter on my behalf.
Why the fuck was Fiona Bunce not stepping in to point out the member of the public was a total fucking Moron?
That was absolutely excruciating to watch.
Why couldn't Burgon step in the o point out he was a moron.
Blimey, Burgon is correct here.
Burgon flubed hard here. He should have have the stats to hand to point out the median wage is 22 grand and the mean around 30 grand.
But I have a lot of sympathy in the face of such idiocy. The women next to the questioner goig "absolute rubbish" when Burgon said he only earned 40 grand as a solicitor was the shit cherry on top of the poo cake.
What you are missing is... it doesn't matter a damn how thick a voter is, if people like that guy think Labour are going to screw them, others in a similar position are going to think exactly the same. 80k is good money, but its not huge... and people like him are paying a feck of a lot of tax anyway.
Its the same principle of people hating inheritance tax, even if they are never going to pay any on pay any, they instinctively hate the tax.
Eighty grand is fucking huge mate.
It is a nice income, but you might be surprised how tax erodes the difference significantly.
A long serving teacher without any special enhancements will be on £40k. Double that to £80k only brings in an extra £24k after tax.
Bit misleading to compare what a £40k earner gets before tax with what an 80k earner gets after tax...
If you’re on 40k the you will get around 30k after tax I think...?
What!! they both get the same up to £40K, a s stated he only showed the difference after £40K and overestimated as he missed out NI on the extra £40K
Higher rate taxpayers only pay 2% NI above the upper threshold. My point was that a 24k increase doesn’t sound so much when compared with 40k. It sounds a lot more when compared with 30k.
Why the fuck was Fiona Bunce not stepping in to point out the member of the public was a total fucking Moron?
That was absolutely excruciating to watch.
Why couldn't Burgon step in the o point out he was a moron.
Blimey, Burgon is correct here.
Burgon flubed hard here. He should have have the stats to hand to point out the median wage is 22 grand and the mean around 30 grand.
But I have a lot of sympathy in the face of such idiocy. The women next to the questioner goig "absolute rubbish" when Burgon said he only earned 40 grand as a solicitor was the shit cherry on top of the poo cake.
What you are missing is... it doesn't matter a damn how thick a voter is, if people like that guy think Labour are going to screw them, others in a similar position are going to think exactly the same. 80k is good money, but its not huge... and people like him are paying a feck of a lot of tax anyway.
Its the same principle of people hating inheritance tax, even if they are never going to pay any on pay any, they instinctively hate the tax.
And Labour's manifesto promises to reverse the Osborne inheritance tax cut which was hugely popular and increase income tax for those earning over £80 000, anyone owning shares or dividends will also be hit by making the tax rate on them equivalent to income tax as will anyone who works for a company or buys from a company through the corporation tax hike leading to wage cuts, job cuts and price rises.
As the IFS have also pointed out that will have to just be for starters
Comments
What makes you think I'm not native (I assume northern Ireland)?
Whereas the councillor being replaced may not have been the one with the highest number of votes (and of course nobody is being replaced from other parties).
So easiest to forget whether gain or loss - just look at the vote share change.
"Labour’s manifesto includes a £600 million promise to scrap prescription charges in England. Broadly speaking, the old, the young, the poor, the disabled and the chronically sick are already exempt from charges: as a result 89% of prescriptions last year were provided free. The main beneficiaries of Labour’s policy to make the remaining 11% free of charge are therefore likely to be working-age people of reasonable financial means, and who are not chronically sick."
Her word isn't worth anything to me. I don't know why it would be to you.
https://twitter.com/geoffuptonNZ/status/1197553667479609344?s=20
And in the real world:
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1197268701474635781?s=20
Hopefully after Dec 12.
"When a management with a reputation for brilliance takes over a business with a reputation for poor performance, it is the reputation of the business that remains intact."
We humans like simple stories. Our brains are hardwired to believe them. Dominic Cummings is the superhero in this tale: with insight, and brilliance and intelligence.
The reality is simpler. People, even most Remainers, want Brexit done. Corbyn is a dangerous joke. Johnson is like syphilis when the alternative is herpes. At least you know that you can get rid of him without too many consequences later.
But Boris Johnson is a man who sways in the slightest breath of wind if he sees a second of advantage. (And by advantage, I mean one second longer in power.) Like Tony Blair, who I sadly think he resembles, he is a man with only a passing interest in the truth.
And he is likely to be handed a large majority. Not because of the brilliance of Cummings, but because he's in the right place at the right time.
Maybe I'm too pessimistic. (He's certainly better than the alternatives.) But I fear that the next five years are not going to go well for the UK.
It's totally plausible that Johnson is just a chancer with a bunch of advantages from birth that are responsible for almost all his achievements. But, he's been doing this a while now, and whatever he's doing does seem to be working.
https://twitter.com/RuthDavidsonMSP/status/1197763129758932992?s=20
QT could, arguably, be a much better programme if advanced to a prime slot - on the news channel, mind you, not getting in the way of people's favourite soaps and such like - with a proper discussion of three or four questions submitted by the viewers at home, and without the useless studio audience.
It locked in the wrong mindset.
I sense a more nervous reaction to Labours than last time, though with a word of caution there were a lot of people who thought the 2017 document holed them before the waterline (myself included) and a dose of humble pie was required.
Why the fuck was Fiona Bunce not stepping in to point out the member of the public was a total fucking Moron?
That was absolutely excruciating to watch.
Why couldn't Burgon step in the o point out he was a moron.
This is not true of morons, who are simply too thick to recognise each other.
1. Increase tax on 80k+ = 5.4bn.
2. Corporation tax cuts reverse = 23.7bn.
3. Unitary tax of multinationals = 6.3bn.
4. Taxing investment income as other income = 14bn.
5. Financial transactions tax = 8.8bn
6. Tax avoidance and evasion = 6.2bn
7. Corporate tax reliefs review = 4.3bn
8. R&D funding reform = 4.0bn
9. Reverse cuts to inheritance tax and Bank Levy, impose VAT on private school fees, scrap Married Persons Allowance, introduce a second homes tax = 5.2bn
10. Additional tax revenue from fiscal multiplier = 5bn
Most of those changes look sensible to me. Even Boris has implicitly accepted the principle behind increasing corporation tax.
But I have a lot of sympathy in the face of such idiocy. The women next to the questioner goig "absolute rubbish" when Burgon said he only earned 40 grand as a solicitor was the shit cherry on top of the poo cake.
Anyway if that chap is a Doctor I'm glad he's not mine. I doubt he has any idea of how Bayes works for instance with that piss poor grasp of statistics
I wonder whether they'll duck that issue by pretending there's a Brexit dividend, or just saying economic growth will pay for it all.
Its the same principle of people hating inheritance tax, even if they are never going to pay any on pay any, they instinctively hate the tax.
If Labour can get into an argument on the 80k figure, I think that will help them.
That bloke is an excellent example of rich people hanging out with rich people and therefore thinking he's normal.
Fair play I had also missed Bunce muttering that she thought the man was wrong.
You can’t double a tax take without substantial behavioural change.
If there's no tax relief on R&D, then profits will be lower, so less corporation tax.
Ditto with financial transactions.
Have a good morning.
A long serving teacher without any special enhancements will be on £40k. Double that to £80k only brings in an extra £24k after tax.
I earn more than that fellow, but would happily do my work for less. It is important to enjoy your working life, and to do a job of benefit to others. Man cannot live by bread alone.
Or as my mother once put it in her Lancashire way: "Virtue is it's own reward, which is just as well as it rarely gets rewarded otherwise"
Which would somewhat have an impact on employment rates, PAYE, NICs etc you would think. Instead they're magicking up some money from "fiscal multiplier" - have they never heard of Deadweight Loss?
If you’re on 40k the you will get around 30k after tax I think...?
As we've established 80 k puts you in the top 5%. That's top whack mate no matter how you cut it.
Easy to trade up but little benefit gained, and then people find it hard to trade down when finances require it. As we are not taught how to manage our finances, many do not significantly notice the benefit of "just" £24k after tax as it is often frittered away.
The polls over this weekend and throughout next week should give an indication
The whole attitude to tax in this country is wrong, from the wealthy with their tax planning all the way down to the builder with his cash in hand jobs. It's a privilege to pay tax - it's an investment in our country's future, a contribution to our essential services and a helping hand to those less fortunate. People need to stop being dicks about it.
However, if I choose to fritter away my ‘surplus income’ I’m still doing a better job than handing it to the government to fritter on my behalf.
As the IFS have also pointed out that will have to just be for starters
£21,100 - 7%
£24,800 - 10%
£27,600 - 15%
£31,100 - 23%
£39,800 - 35%
£45,001 - 48%
£60,500 - 68%
£70,000 - 74%
£150,001 - 86%
https://t.co/yDpCqZUzKE https://t.co/x0GMdQ1iDt