I've just been trying to read Funding Real Change to find out how Labour would change income tax. There's a lot about post-behavioural yield, taxable income elasticity and mechanical yields, but there doesn't seem to be any mention of new tax rates. It does refer in a footnote to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, ‘Labour’s proposed income tax rises for high-income individuals’, May 2017 and seems to imply that the income tax rates would be as proposed in 2017. The IFS link states that when taking into account employer and employee NICs, the rates would change from their current levels to:
49.0% to 53.4% for those with earnings between £80,000 and £100,000;
66.6% to 73.2% for those between £100,000 and £123,000;
49.0% to 57.8% for those between £123,000 and £150,000;
53.4% to 57.8% for those on more than £150,000
Those rates are on the face of it too high. But those arent what people on those incomes will actually pay, as there are numerous tax avoidance schemes the government offers them, especially pension tax relief but also VCTs, EIS and SEIS.
I have yet to see any stats showing the actual proportions paid by higher earners once those are taken into account, it would be very interesting (to some!).
I think a significant reduction of those reliefs (beyond a reasonable threshold, perhaps 20k a year like ISAs) would be far better than increasing the headline rates.
Labour need to urgently clarify their abortion policy if they wish anyone remotely religious (or with a soul) to vote for them. https://righttolife.org.uk/news/labour-pledge-to-introduce-abortion-for-any-reason-up-to-birth/ These things are traditionally matters of conscience for MPs, and public opinion is that late abortions should be more restricted - rather than on-demand at 39 weeks.
ummm the LibDem policy is also to decriminalise abortion (haven't checked other parties yet). Most Conservative MPs chose not to vote against decriminalising abortion in Northern Ireland. So which party should anyone "with a soul vote" for these days?
So ther eis Surely, there is a difference between the decriminalising abortion in NI - and removing the time limit of 23 weeks and 6 days of pregnancy, in line with the Abortion Act 1967?
I don't think so. The Abortion Act 1967 never applied to Northern Ireland. Labour policy would bring England and Wales into line with the situation in Northern Ireland since October this year.
So there is now literally an abortion free-for-all in Northern Ireland, with no time limit? Any woman can turn up in Belfast and ask for a termination at eight and a half months? Just because, say, she doesn't like the sex of her baby?
Don't know about George but something I have noticed is that many relatively affluent people tend to be reluctant to admit - or even to allow themselves to discover - that they are much better off than the average joe. The QT exchange was quite useful in demonstrating this common little foible. It has great political significance, I think, since it can and does distort the public perception of taxation and any proposed reforms in that area.
The Tories should really start hammering Labour on trust. Labour keep saying their tax rises will only affect the top 5% which is simply untrue. The abolition of marriage alllowance, the increase in dividend tax rates and the reduction in IHT allowances will hit lots of ordinary people with incomes way below £80,000. Labour are being downright dishonest in claiming otherwise.
Especially as Labour haven't even bothered to include hundreds of billions for 'capital' expenditure and nationalisation in their figures. Where the hell is that coming from?
Their explanation - "Taking companies into public ownership is fiscally neutral by international accounting standards when bonds are exchanged for shares (as in previous nationalisations)"
with a footnote - "Depending on timing there may be some further capital expenditure on nationalisations but we would hope HM Treasury’s Public Ownership Unit will have completed their acquisition before then and have not included a fiscal multiplier effect from them"
Have they accounted for the expenditure of interest on these bonds?
Surely its only fiscally neutral if you intend to re-privatise the shares in the future?
Their explanation - "Taking companies into public ownership is fiscally neutral by international accounting standards when bonds are exchanged for shares (as in previous nationalisations)"
with a footnote - "Depending on timing there may be some further capital expenditure on nationalisations but we would hope HM Treasury’s Public Ownership Unit will have completed their acquisition before then and have not included a fiscal multiplier effect from them"
In other words they'd finance the extra few hundred billion all by an increase in borrowing, and hope the financial markets didn't notice that the borrowing to GDP ratio had gone through the roof. That seems rather, shall we say, optimistic.
Labour need to urgently clarify their abortion policy if they wish anyone remotely religious (or with a soul) to vote for them. https://righttolife.org.uk/news/labour-pledge-to-introduce-abortion-for-any-reason-up-to-birth/ These things are traditionally matters of conscience for MPs, and public opinion is that late abortions should be more restricted - rather than on-demand at 39 weeks.
ummm the LibDem policy is also to decriminalise abortion (haven't checked other parties yet). Most Conservative MPs chose not to vote against decriminalising abortion in Northern Ireland. So which party should anyone "with a soul vote" for these days?
The LD policy specifically mentioned retaining the current 24 week limit, the Labour manifesto didn’t. Hence the questioning of it by religious groups.
Yes, but it is also unclear from the LibDems what retaining the current 24 week limit would mean. They seem to be saying they would decriminalise abortion by getting rid of those sections of the 1861 Act. But there is nothing about introducing a new criminal offence. So perhaps retaining the current 24 week limit would be about provision, if so, surely no different from Labour policy?
The Tories should really start hammering Labour on trust. Labour keep saying their tax rises will only affect the top 5% which is simply untrue. The abolition of marriage alllowance, the increase in dividend tax rates and the reduction in IHT allowances will hit lots of ordinary people with incomes way below £80,000. Labour are being downright dishonest in claiming otherwise.
Especially as Labour haven't even bothered to include hundreds of billions for 'capital' expenditure and nationalisation in their figures. Where the hell is that coming from?
Their explanation - "Taking companies into public ownership is fiscally neutral by international accounting standards when bonds are exchanged for shares (as in previous nationalisations)"
with a footnote - "Depending on timing there may be some further capital expenditure on nationalisations but we would hope HM Treasury’s Public Ownership Unit will have completed their acquisition before then and have not included a fiscal multiplier effect from them"
Have they accounted for the expenditure of interest on these bonds?
Surely its only fiscally neutral if you intend to re-privatise the shares in the future?
Who’s counting, when the money just gets printed anyway?
No one reads manifestos bar political junkies and you can get to a point where the public the Tories are trying to terrify about Labours plans simply don’t believe them .
Not sure some of the Tories recent behaviour hasn’t made their attacks more blunt .
Labour need to urgently clarify their abortion policy if they wish anyone remotely religious (or with a soul) to vote for them. https://righttolife.org.uk/news/labour-pledge-to-introduce-abortion-for-any-reason-up-to-birth/ These things are traditionally matters of conscience for MPs, and public opinion is that late abortions should be more restricted - rather than on-demand at 39 weeks.
ummm the LibDem policy is also to decriminalise abortion (haven't checked other parties yet). Most Conservative MPs chose not to vote against decriminalising abortion in Northern Ireland. So which party should anyone "with a soul vote" for these days?
So ther eis Surely, there is a difference between the decriminalising abortion in NI - and removing the time limit of 23 weeks and 6 days of pregnancy, in line with the Abortion Act 1967?
I don't think so. The Abortion Act 1967 never applied to Northern Ireland. Labour policy would bring England and Wales into line with the situation in Northern Ireland since October this year.
So there is now literally an abortion free-for-all in Northern Ireland, with no time limit? Any woman can turn up in Belfast and ask for a termination at eight and a half months? Just because, say, she doesn't like the sex of her baby?
But dont even think about hurting those foxes!
Killing foxes - evil beyond recognition.
Killing human babies in the womb - yeah, that’s okay, right up to 40 weeks.
Don't know about George but something I have noticed is that many relatively affluent people tend to be reluctant to admit - or even to allow themselves to discover - that they are much better off than the average joe. The QT exchange was quite useful in demonstrating this common little foible. It has great political significance, I think, since it can and does distort the public perception of taxation and any proposed reforms in that area.
Yes, and I think there was some research a little while back showing something like people earning more than 3 times the median were MORE likely to agree with a statement like "I struggle to afford the essentials" than people with average earnings...
Omnishamblesfesto! Scrapping the married couples allowance is a totally insane thing to put in a manifesto. Slip it in your first budget but dont tell working class couples you are screwing them up front! It's as daft as gordons 10p rate clusterfeck
Indeed. CCHQ and the media need to hold Labour to account on this.
Labour need to urgently clarify their abortion policy if they wish anyone remotely religious (or with a soul) to vote for them. https://righttolife.org.uk/news/labour-pledge-to-introduce-abortion-for-any-reason-up-to-birth/ These things are traditionally matters of conscience for MPs, and public opinion is that late abortions should be more restricted - rather than on-demand at 39 weeks.
ummm the LibDem policy is also to decriminalise abortion (haven't checked other parties yet). Most Conservative MPs chose not to vote against decriminalising abortion in Northern Ireland. So which party should anyone "with a soul vote" for these days?
So ther eis Surely, there is a difference between the decriminalising abortion in NI - and removing the time limit of 23 weeks and 6 days of pregnancy, in line with the Abortion Act 1967?
I don't think so. The Abortion Act 1967 never applied to Northern Ireland. Labour policy would bring England and Wales into line with the situation in Northern Ireland since October this year.
So there is now literally an abortion free-for-all in Northern Ireland, with no time limit? Any woman can turn up in Belfast and ask for a termination at eight and a half months? Just because, say, she doesn't like the sex of her baby?
But dont even think about hurting those foxes!
Killing foxes - evil beyond recognition.
Killing human babies in the womb - yeah, that’s okay, right up to 40 weeks.
Omnishamblesfesto! Scrapping the married couples allowance is a totally insane thing to put in a manifesto. Slip it in your first budget but dont tell working class couples you are screwing them up front! It's as daft as gordons 10p rate clusterfeck
Indeed. CCHQ and the media need to hold Labour to account on this.
They’re too busy droning on about Get Brexit Done .
This has to be the darkest GE campaign I've ever witnessed in this country - disseminating the idea that one of the major political parties intends to legalize infanticide. Sadly, people will have looked to the US and concluded that this stuff works so let's emulate.
Given the Roman Catholic’s shameful history towards the Jews I’d have thought the Catholic Herald would be on Team Corbyn.
Well that is a first. Never seen you write a bigoted post before. I suppose some people think it is NOT ok tbe "Islamophobic" or anti-Semitic, but it IS to kick the world's 1.2Billion Roman Catholics
I am assuming he missed out the word "church's".
You do not want to be in the position of trying to defend the Vatican's history towards Jews.
To be fair to the RC's, very few Christian churches do NOT have a poor record on anti-semitism. At least at some point in their history.
The CoE hasn't done too badly, assuming we wipe the slate clean at the Reformation.
Yeah. The Edict of Expulsion can be blamed on the Catholics.
To be fair, and to argue against myself, it was Cromwell who formally let the Jews back, although since Shakespeare had Jewish characters I assume there were Jews in London around 1600.
Can't think of any English Jews in Shakespeare.
The roles of Shylock and Jessica are two of the most uncomfortable in the Bard's works. The Merchant of Venice was our O Level set play - 1976. Is it still used ?
Labour need to urgently clarify their abortion policy if they wish anyone remotely religious (or with a soul) to vote for them. https://righttolife.org.uk/news/labour-pledge-to-introduce-abortion-for-any-reason-up-to-birth/ These things are traditionally matters of conscience for MPs, and public opinion is that late abortions should be more restricted - rather than on-demand at 39 weeks.
They are leaving no stone unturned in their effort to lose this election.
How do you abort a baby at full term? Cut it out and stab it in the heart?
I don’t want to be so unpleasantly graphic but that goes way beyond what’s morally and ethically acceptable, so this must be an oversight?
I don’t know anyone who’s arguing for such an “abortion” right. Even on the ultra free choice side.
Labour need to urgently clarify their abortion policy if they wish anyone remotely religious (or with a soul) to vote for them. https://righttolife.org.uk/news/labour-pledge-to-introduce-abortion-for-any-reason-up-to-birth/ These things are traditionally matters of conscience for MPs, and public opinion is that late abortions should be more restricted - rather than on-demand at 39 weeks.
ummm the LibDem policy is also to decriminalise abortion (haven't checked other parties yet). Most Conservative MPs chose not to vote against decriminalising abortion in Northern Ireland. So which party should anyone "with a soul vote" for these days?
So ther eis Surely, there is a difference between the decriminalising abortion in NI - and removing the time limit of 23 weeks and 6 days of pregnancy, in line with the Abortion Act 1967?
I don't think so. The Abortion Act 1967 never applied to Northern Ireland. Labour policy would bring England and Wales into line with the situation in Northern Ireland since October this year.
So there is now literally an abortion free-for-all in Northern Ireland, with no time limit? Any woman can turn up in Belfast and ask for a termination at eight and a half months? Just because, say, she doesn't like the sex of her baby?
I don't know, you tell me - can they? do they? and who do they ask? and what answer do they get?
These women getting abortions during labour or whatever only exist in your weird imagination.
Good afternoon all you lovely PBers. See you all on SKY News coming from Invergordon in Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross just after 5.30pm this evening. Toodle pip.
Age continues to be the main electoral dividing line. Labour still dominate among young voters, but their 51% share of 18-29 year olds is down from the more than 60% they took in 2017
People without capital are quite happy to vote to break up capitalism. Government needs to restore balance between the different age groups in society, not just cater for those who vote for them.
Omnishamblesfesto! Scrapping the married couples allowance is a totally insane thing to put in a manifesto. Slip it in your first budget but dont tell working class couples you are screwing them up front! It's as daft as gordons 10p rate clusterfeck
Indeed. CCHQ and the media need to hold Labour to account on this.
It's about the only policy in the Labour manifesto that I agree with. Couples get economies of scale that us singletons don't, it is ludicrous that they pay less tax as well.
Labour need to urgently clarify their abortion policy if they wish anyone remotely religious (or with a soul) to vote for them. https://righttolife.org.uk/news/labour-pledge-to-introduce-abortion-for-any-reason-up-to-birth/ These things are traditionally matters of conscience for MPs, and public opinion is that late abortions should be more restricted - rather than on-demand at 39 weeks.
They are leaving no stone unturned in their effort to lose this election.
How do you abort a baby at full term? Cut it out and stab it in the heart?
I don’t want to be so unpleasantly graphic but that goes way beyond what’s morally and ethically acceptable, so this must be an oversight?
I don’t know anyone who’s arguing for such an “abortion” right. Even on the ultra free choice side.
It's what's known amongst sane people as a "caesarean".
Am on my mobile so don’t have the precise figures but only real losers are Biden and Sanders but they are pretty hefty.
Really green on the others.
I've switched to a more vanilla approach. I'm just laying Trump for WH2020. The guy will not be re-elected. It is a Not Happening event. If I'm wrong on this I will undertake here and now to make a tube journey north of the river. That's how certain I am.
Age continues to be the main electoral dividing line. Labour still dominate among young voters, but their 51% share of 18-29 year olds is down from the more than 60% they took in 2017
People without capital are quite happy to vote to break up capitalism. Government needs to restore balance between the different age groups in society, not just cater for those who vote for them.
The problem is that if one side unilaterally tries to redress that balance starting with their own supporters, those supporters stop voting for them. Hence the dementia tax going down in infamy.
Labour need to urgently clarify their abortion policy if they wish anyone remotely religious (or with a soul) to vote for them. https://righttolife.org.uk/news/labour-pledge-to-introduce-abortion-for-any-reason-up-to-birth/ These things are traditionally matters of conscience for MPs, and public opinion is that late abortions should be more restricted - rather than on-demand at 39 weeks.
They are leaving no stone unturned in their effort to lose this election.
How do you abort a baby at full term? Cut it out and stab it in the heart?
I don’t want to be so unpleasantly graphic but that goes way beyond what’s morally and ethically acceptable, so this must be an oversight?
I don’t know anyone who’s arguing for such an “abortion” right. Even on the ultra free choice side.
It's what's known amongst sane people as a "caesarean".
Is this site the only place where the changes to dividend taxation and the marriage allowance are even being discussed?
Is any mainstream political journalist even aware of these changes? The reality is that supposedly expert journalists don't have the faintest idea about such elements of the tax system.
This is an absolutely massive open goal for the Conservatives yet they are completely failing to exploit it. It's extraordinary - why isn't every Conservative MP appearing in the media fully briefed on this and ramming the message home?
They didn't do quite as well in Chichester! 2 gains for the Tories last night, one from the reds one from the yellows. Looking ominous for dec 12
Luckily for Labour their vote is holding up well here.
In Chichester, the LibDem councillor was first elected only this May, promptly left the party, then joined the Green Party, then resigned the council and forced a by election, all within five months. Hardly surprising that the ward’s electors weren’t impressed. Crap candidate selection, for sure, but hardly a trend that can be extrapolated.
No one reads manifestos bar political junkies and you can get to a point where the public the Tories are trying to terrify about Labours plans simply don’t believe them .
Not sure some of the Tories recent behaviour hasn’t made their attacks more blunt .
That's all true but doesnt the exact same logic apply to labour trying to terrify about the Tories' plans?
Labour need to urgently clarify their abortion policy if they wish anyone remotely religious (or with a soul) to vote for them. https://righttolife.org.uk/news/labour-pledge-to-introduce-abortion-for-any-reason-up-to-birth/ These things are traditionally matters of conscience for MPs, and public opinion is that late abortions should be more restricted - rather than on-demand at 39 weeks.
They are leaving no stone unturned in their effort to lose this election.
How do you abort a baby at full term? Cut it out and stab it in the heart?
I don’t want to be so unpleasantly graphic but that goes way beyond what’s morally and ethically acceptable, so this must be an oversight?
I don’t know anyone who’s arguing for such an “abortion” right. Even on the ultra free choice side.
"As we mentioned earlier, a member of the audience on last night's Question Time criticised Labour's policy of raising income taxes for people earning more than £80,000 on the grounds that it wouldn't be enough to put them in the top 5% of earners. Reality Check has been looking at the numbers."
Is BBC Reality Check aware of the changes to Dividend taxation and the marriage allowance?
He does say not in the top 50% once, at about 50 seconds, but getting quite angry at that point, probably just mis-spoke rather than really believing that, he doesn't repeat that claim. Could be I mis-hear 15% as 50% there, but I'm pretty sure it's 50%.
He clearly says 50%, and he really seems to believe it.
He also says that ever doctor, solicitor and accountant in the country earns over £80k, and the woman sitting next to him (I assume she is with him) certainly seems to believe that, judging from her reaction to a suggestion of a solicitor earning £40k.
I've been spending some time looking at the job market for accountants lately, and it's a rare job advert for a qualified accountant here that is offering anything like that amount.
It really does show how little people know about the earnings of other professions. I never stops them judging people though.
No one reads manifestos bar political junkies and you can get to a point where the public the Tories are trying to terrify about Labours plans simply don’t believe them .
Not sure some of the Tories recent behaviour hasn’t made their attacks more blunt .
That's all true but doesnt the exact same logic apply to labour trying to terrify about the Tories' plans?
If you think any one change or event will be 100 % positive for your side and 100 % negative for the other, then get into a different trade.
Am on my mobile so don’t have the precise figures but only real losers are Biden and Sanders but they are pretty hefty.
Really green on the others.
I've switched to a more vanilla approach. I'm just laying Trump for WH2020. The guy will not be re-elected. It is a Not Happening event. If I'm wrong on this I will undertake here and now to make a tube journey north of the river. That's how certain I am.
Rewarding yourself for being wrong simply isn’t how things are done around here.
No one reads manifestos bar political junkies and you can get to a point where the public the Tories are trying to terrify about Labours plans simply don’t believe them .
Not sure some of the Tories recent behaviour hasn’t made their attacks more blunt .
That's all true but doesnt the exact same logic apply to labour trying to terrify about the Tories' plans?
Yes it works both ways. But the Tories were the ones who were caught out with their dodgy fact check .
Labour need to urgently clarify their abortion policy if they wish anyone remotely religious (or with a soul) to vote for them. https://righttolife.org.uk/news/labour-pledge-to-introduce-abortion-for-any-reason-up-to-birth/ These things are traditionally matters of conscience for MPs, and public opinion is that late abortions should be more restricted - rather than on-demand at 39 weeks.
ummm the LibDem policy is also to decriminalise abortion (haven't checked other parties yet). Most Conservative MPs chose not to vote against decriminalising abortion in Northern Ireland. So which party should anyone "with a soul vote" for these days?
So ther eis Surely, there is a difference between the decriminalising abortion in NI - and removing the time limit of 23 weeks and 6 days of pregnancy, in line with the Abortion Act 1967?
I don't think so. The Abortion Act 1967 never applied to Northern Ireland. Labour policy would bring England and Wales into line with the situation in Northern Ireland since October this year.
So there is now literally an abortion free-for-all in Northern Ireland, with no time limit? Any woman can turn up in Belfast and ask for a termination at eight and a half months? Just because, say, she doesn't like the sex of her baby?
I don't know, you tell me - can they? do they? and who do they ask? and what answer do they get?
These women getting abortions during labour or whatever only exist in your weird imagination.
I am trying to ascertain what the legal situation is in NI. It may be that there are no late-term abortions happening. Hell, they've only just started happening at all. But - is there now no legal upper time limit within part of the UK? I think it a question to which we should have an answer. And if so, politicians should answer whether that should remain.
Personally, I see no reason why abortion law shouldn't be standardised across the whole of the UK.
Deeply concerning Labour is now committed to abortion on demand up to birth, that is something that could tip many religious Catholics especially towards the Tories who normally lean Labour
He does say not in the top 50% once, at about 50 seconds, but getting quite angry at that point, probably just mis-spoke rather than really believing that, he doesn't repeat that claim. Could be I mis-hear 15% as 50% there, but I'm pretty sure it's 50%.
He clearly says 50%, and he really seems to believe it.
He also says that ever doctor, solicitor and accountant in the country earns over £80k, and the woman sitting next to him (I assume she is with him) certainly seems to believe that, judging from her reaction to a suggestion of a solicitor earning £40k.
I've been spending some time looking at the job market for accountants lately, and it's a rare job advert for a qualified accountant here that is offering anything like that amount.
It really does show how little people know about the earnings of other professions. I never stops them judging people though.
But also highlights the problem labour have. People believe they are coming for them, their little pile of savings and their home to fund free stuff for what they see as neer do wells They are only partly wrong
Deeply concerning Labour is now committed to abortion on demand up to birth, that is something that could tip many religious Catholics especially towards the Tories who normally lean Labour
He does say not in the top 50% once, at about 50 seconds, but getting quite angry at that point, probably just mis-spoke rather than really believing that, he doesn't repeat that claim. Could be I mis-hear 15% as 50% there, but I'm pretty sure it's 50%.
He clearly says 50%, and he really seems to believe it.
He also says that ever doctor, solicitor and accountant in the country earns over £80k, and the woman sitting next to him (I assume she is with him) certainly seems to believe that, judging from her reaction to a suggestion of a solicitor earning £40k.
I've been spending some time looking at the job market for accountants lately, and it's a rare job advert for a qualified accountant here that is offering anything like that amount.
It really does show how little people know about the earnings of other professions. I never stops them judging people though.
Most GPS and certainly most qualified city solicitors and accountants and corporate lawyers would earn over £80k a year
Interesting that Sky News have just had a segment on the Muslim vote . I brought this up a few days ago , it’s crucial in some key marginals in the Midlands and parts of the north .
He does say not in the top 50% once, at about 50 seconds, but getting quite angry at that point, probably just mis-spoke rather than really believing that, he doesn't repeat that claim. Could be I mis-hear 15% as 50% there, but I'm pretty sure it's 50%.
He clearly says 50%, and he really seems to believe it.
He also says that ever doctor, solicitor and accountant in the country earns over £80k, and the woman sitting next to him (I assume she is with him) certainly seems to believe that, judging from her reaction to a suggestion of a solicitor earning £40k.
I've been spending some time looking at the job market for accountants lately, and it's a rare job advert for a qualified accountant here that is offering anything like that amount.
It really does show how little people know about the earnings of other professions. I never stops them judging people though.
Most GPS and certainly most qualified city solicitors and accountants and corporate lawyers would earn over £80k a year
Undoubtedly, but that isn't what he claimed (and clearly believes).
Deeply concerning Labour is now committed to abortion on demand up to birth, that is something that could tip many religious Catholics especially towards the Tories who normally lean Labour
If that is their policy it will tip anyone who isn't a sick f*ck into a fit of conniption and labour loathing.
On topic: Warren recently dropped a clanger by splitting her healthcare plan into two parts - a public option for the first half of her term, then a push for medicare for all in the second half. Whatever the policy merits, the nature of the US electoral cycle makes getting the second part done look unworkable, and the Dem base is utterly obsessed with Medicare-For-All and is likely to peel off to Sanders as a result.
He does say not in the top 50% once, at about 50 seconds, but getting quite angry at that point, probably just mis-spoke rather than really believing that, he doesn't repeat that claim. Could be I mis-hear 15% as 50% there, but I'm pretty sure it's 50%.
He clearly says 50%, and he really seems to believe it.
He also says that ever doctor, solicitor and accountant in the country earns over £80k, and the woman sitting next to him (I assume she is with him) certainly seems to believe that, judging from her reaction to a suggestion of a solicitor earning £40k.
I've been spending some time looking at the job market for accountants lately, and it's a rare job advert for a qualified accountant here that is offering anything like that amount.
It really does show how little people know about the earnings of other professions. I never stops them judging people though.
Most GPS and certainly most qualified city solicitors and accountants and corporate lawyers would earn over £80k a year
London (and you are in London) is very different from the rest of the UK. In Northern Ireland I'm aware of fully qualified accountants (albeit ones who want a quiet life) that earn £40k and are very happy.
Am on my mobile so don’t have the precise figures but only real losers are Biden and Sanders but they are pretty hefty.
Really green on the others.
I've switched to a more vanilla approach. I'm just laying Trump for WH2020. The guy will not be re-elected. It is a Not Happening event. If I'm wrong on this I will undertake here and now to make a tube journey north of the river. That's how certain I am.
Interesting that Sky News have just had a segment on the Muslim vote . I brought this up a few days ago , it’s crucial in some key marginals in the Midlands and parts of the north .
Deeply concerning Labour is now committed to abortion on demand up to birth, that is something that could tip many religious Catholics especially towards the Tories who normally lean Labour
I'm sure there will be a Labour "clarification" on that before the days out.
I mean if someone decided they wanted an abortion two weeks before the "due" date the hospital would have to decide between a pillow and a lethal injection as to how they would stop the baby's heart.
I can't see any medical clinician being willing to agree to that....
Deeply concerning Labour is now committed to abortion on demand up to birth, that is something that could tip many religious Catholics especially towards the Tories who normally lean Labour
The Labour Party would decriminalise abortion in Britain, making it legal to have an abortion for any reason up to the birth of a child, a party spokeswoman has confirmed.
The party’s manifesto, launched today ahead of the December 12 general election, says: “We will uphold women’s reproductive rights and decriminalise abortions.”
A Labour spokeswoman confirmed to the Catholic Herald that this would mean the repeal of the relevant sections of the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act, which currently bans abortion.
Deeply concerning Labour is now committed to abortion on demand up to birth, that is something that could tip many religious Catholics especially towards the Tories who normally lean Labour
I'm sure there will be a Labour "clarification" on that before the days out.
I mean if someone decided they wanted an abortion two weeks before the "due" date the hospital would have to decide between a pillow and a lethal injection as to how they would stop the baby's heart.
I can't see any medical clinician being willing to agree to that....
Indeed, this is a horrible policy from Labour and also poses a problem for medics with any conscience
The issue is surely less about whether or not he’s in the top 5% of earners (he is) but the perception.
The fact is that if you’re on 80k yes you are in the top 5% but you inhabit that top 5% with a lot of people much wealthier than you, obscenely so in some cases. The term “top 5% of earners” does conjure up images of oligarchs and fat cats, but there will be some everyday working families in there too.
FWIW I think it’s all a little bit of a storm in a teacup. As with any tax policy if you’re going to be worse off because of the change you’re going to be angry about it.
The Labour Party would decriminalise abortion in Britain, making it legal to have an abortion for any reason up to the birth of a child, a party spokeswoman has confirmed.
The party’s manifesto, launched today ahead of the December 12 general election, says: “We will uphold women’s reproductive rights and decriminalise abortions.”
A Labour spokeswoman confirmed to the Catholic Herald that this would mean the repeal of the relevant sections of the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act, which currently bans abortion.
Deeply concerning Labour is now committed to abortion on demand up to birth, that is something that could tip many religious Catholics especially towards the Tories who normally lean Labour
I'm sure there will be a Labour "clarification" on that before the days out.
I mean if someone decided they wanted an abortion two weeks before the "due" date the hospital would have to decide between a pillow and a lethal injection as to how they would stop the baby's heart.
I can't see any medical clinician being willing to agree to that....
Trouble is for labour, whatever they 'clarify' they sat and agreed this on Saturday. Yuck.
This has to be the darkest GE campaign I've ever witnessed in this country - disseminating the idea that one of the major political parties intends to legalize infanticide. Sadly, people will have looked to the US and concluded that this stuff works so let's emulate.
Given the Roman Catholic’s shameful history towards the Jews I’d have thought the Catholic Herald would be on Team Corbyn.
Well that is a first. Never seen you write a bigoted post before. I suppose some people think it is NOT ok tbe "Islamophobic" or anti-Semitic, but it IS to kick the world's 1.2Billion Roman Catholics
I am assuming he missed out the word "church's".
You do not want to be in the position of trying to defend the Vatican's history towards Jews.
To be fair to the RC's, very few Christian churches do NOT have a poor record on anti-semitism. At least at some point in their history.
And applying that same logic to Islam and jihad, you get what?
It strikes me that all of the great religions have periods in their history when they have enabled, espoused or created pogroms against those of other faiths. Even Buddhism is doing it right now against the Rohinga. Hindus against Muslims and Sikhs. Muslim against Muslim and, in the days of Mohammed, pretty much everyone else.
I do not think this is a particularly useful line of argument
Deeply concerning Labour is now committed to abortion on demand up to birth, that is something that could tip many religious Catholics especially towards the Tories who normally lean Labour
To be fair, Labour are pursuing diversity in their appeal to religious minorities. They've so far done an excellent job alienating Jews, they've made good progress in peeing off Hindus, and they are now turning their attention to alienating Catholics.
The Labour Party would decriminalise abortion in Britain, making it legal to have an abortion for any reason up to the birth of a child, a party spokeswoman has confirmed.
The party’s manifesto, launched today ahead of the December 12 general election, says: “We will uphold women’s reproductive rights and decriminalise abortions.”
A Labour spokeswoman confirmed to the Catholic Herald that this would mean the repeal of the relevant sections of the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act, which currently bans abortion.
Interesting that Sky News have just had a segment on the Muslim vote . I brought this up a few days ago , it’s crucial in some key marginals in the Midlands and parts of the north .
Doesn't it vote Labour, en masse and almost unquestioningly?
Surely in practice we have abortion on demand anyway?
Is any woman in the UK ever actually refused an abortion? Surely not.
Up to 12 weeks on demand. Between 12 & 24 weeks when there are compelling reasons (health of baby or mother). After 24 weeks no. Given advances in treatment of premature babies the debate has been about reducing the 24 weeks - not extending it to full term - which might be the Labour proposal (but I can't believe it). However loony Labour has got (in parts) I very much doubt they are advocating infanticide.
The Labour abortion policy is really on the law because currently abortion is illegal but has exceptions . Any policy change would then have to be debated and voted on in the Commons where limits would be put.
The Labour proposal is just making abortion legal. I think Labour need to clarify what exactly the term limits they would think acceptable .
Labour need to urgently clarify their abortion policy if they wish anyone remotely religious (or with a soul) to vote for them. https://righttolife.org.uk/news/labour-pledge-to-introduce-abortion-for-any-reason-up-to-birth/ These things are traditionally matters of conscience for MPs, and public opinion is that late abortions should be more restricted - rather than on-demand at 39 weeks.
ummm the LibDem policy is also to decriminalise abortion (haven't checked other parties yet). Most Conservative MPs chose not to vote against decriminalising abortion in Northern Ireland. So which party should anyone "with a soul vote" for these days?
So ther eis Surely, there is a difference between the decriminalising abortion in NI - and removing the time limit of 23 weeks and 6 days of pregnancy, in line with the Abortion Act 1967?
I don't think so. The Abortion Act 1967 never applied to Northern Ireland. Labour policy would bring England and Wales into line with the situation in Northern Ireland since October this year.
So there is now literally an abortion free-for-all in Northern Ireland, with no time limit? Any woman can turn up in Belfast and ask for a termination at eight and a half months? Just because, say, she doesn't like the sex of her baby?
I don't know, you tell me - can they? do they? and who do they ask? and what answer do they get?
These women getting abortions during labour or whatever only exist in your weird imagination.
I am trying to ascertain what the legal situation is in NI. It may be that there are no late-term abortions happening. Hell, they've only just started happening at all. But - is there now no legal upper time limit within part of the UK? I think it a question to which we should have an answer. And if so, politicians should answer whether that should remain.
Personally, I see no reason why abortion law shouldn't be standardised across the whole of the UK.
Fair enough, but I'm only suggesting that it's bullshit to say that decriminalising abortion leads to healthy babies being killed 10 seconds before they would have been born. I would agree that labour policy lacks detail, as does libdem policy. I also do not know if it is really a necessary change, or even a good idea. But some of the propaganda around it is a bit silly.
As for Northern Ireland, as I understand it just from newspaper reports and not being a lawyer, it is no longer a criminal offence to have an abortion - unlike in England and Wales where it is except in the circumstances allowed under the 1967 Act, I think.
Age continues to be the main electoral dividing line. Labour still dominate among young voters, but their 51% share of 18-29 year olds is down from the more than 60% they took in 2017
People without capital are quite happy to vote to break up capitalism. Government needs to restore balance between the different age groups in society, not just cater for those who vote for them.
The problem is that if one side unilaterally tries to redress that balance starting with their own supporters, those supporters stop voting for them. Hence the dementia tax going down in infamy.
Agree that is the problem. For me the solution is leadership and honest communication. Which is why Rory Stewart could have been a fantastic PM.
Surely in practice we have abortion on demand anyway?
Is any woman in the UK ever actually refused an abortion? Surely not.
If it's beyond the statutory limit she is.
She is refused, except in certain circumstances.
The Labour manifesto appears to suggest that abortion is illegal - unless they mean to decriminalise all abortions, which clearly they don't because that would include backstreet ones.
The Abortion Act 1967 amended the Offences against the Person Act 1861.
Am on my mobile so don’t have the precise figures but only real losers are Biden and Sanders but they are pretty hefty.
Really green on the others.
I've switched to a more vanilla approach. I'm just laying Trump for WH2020. The guy will not be re-elected. It is a Not Happening event. If I'm wrong on this I will undertake here and now to make a tube journey north of the river. That's how certain I am.
See you north of the river, he will stroll it
My current gut feeling is that, if Warren or Sanders gets the nomination, there is a slightly better than evens chances of Trump winning. But, it will come at a cost of big losses in the House (suburbia, women and Independents) and the Senate. He may well end up being impeached in his second term. Any betting markets for that?
I appreciate many people dislike burkas and the assumptions underlying it (and to be honest I agree). But in that case agitate for burka delegislation. If something is legal you should be allowed to do it without unreasonable force placed against you. If you believe burka wearing should be legal then you have to allow people who wear burkas to earn a living.
Couldn't disagree more. When somebody gets paid for a living the person paying has a right [within reason] to stipulate what uniform or other standards are acceptable. If someone stipulates that being able to see the face of the person hired is relevant to the role then that is not unreasonable.
I think Ann Summers lingerie should be legal but I wouldn't expect a 4 year old to be looked after by someone wearing an Ann Summers outfit, would you?
What you choose to wear at home and what is suitable for work are not the same.
The Labour Party would decriminalise abortion in Britain, making it legal to have an abortion for any reason up to the birth of a child, a party spokeswoman has confirmed.
The party’s manifesto, launched today ahead of the December 12 general election, says: “We will uphold women’s reproductive rights and decriminalise abortions.”
A Labour spokeswoman confirmed to the Catholic Herald that this would mean the repeal of the relevant sections of the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act, which currently bans abortion.
Deeply concerning Labour is now committed to abortion on demand up to birth, that is something that could tip many religious Catholics especially towards the Tories who normally lean Labour
To be fair, Labour are pursuing diversity in their appeal to religious minorities. They've so far done an excellent job alienating Jews, they've made good progress in peeing off Hindus, and they are now turning their attention to alienating Catholics.
Plus Muslims oppose abortion too as do many Anglicans, certainly on demand
This has to be the darkest GE campaign I've ever witnessed in this country - disseminating the idea that one of the major political parties intends to legalize infanticide. Sadly, people will have looked to the US and concluded that this stuff works so let's emulate.
Given the Roman Catholic’s shameful history towards the Jews I’d have thought the Catholic Herald would be on Team Corbyn.
Well that is a first. Never seen you write a bigoted post before. I suppose some people think it is NOT ok tbe "Islamophobic" or anti-Semitic, but it IS to kick the world's 1.2Billion Roman Catholics
I am assuming he missed out the word "church's".
You do not want to be in the position of trying to defend the Vatican's history towards Jews.
To be fair to the RC's, very few Christian churches do NOT have a poor record on anti-semitism. At least at some point in their history.
The CoE hasn't done too badly, assuming we wipe the slate clean at the Reformation.
I know very little about England and Wales religious law, so I'm happy to be contradicted here, but I was under the impression that in law the Anglican Church is deemed to be simply a renaming and reorganization of the existing (Catholic) church under a new head. This would make it invidious for it to disclaim responsibility for acts before the Reformation.
He does say not in the top 50% once, at about 50 seconds, but getting quite angry at that point, probably just mis-spoke rather than really believing that, he doesn't repeat that claim. Could be I mis-hear 15% as 50% there, but I'm pretty sure it's 50%.
He clearly says 50%, and he really seems to believe it.
He also says that ever doctor, solicitor and accountant in the country earns over £80k, and the woman sitting next to him (I assume she is with him) certainly seems to believe that, judging from her reaction to a suggestion of a solicitor earning £40k.
I've been spending some time looking at the job market for accountants lately, and it's a rare job advert for a qualified accountant here that is offering anything like that amount.
It really does show how little people know about the earnings of other professions. I never stops them judging people though.
Most GPS and certainly most qualified city solicitors and accountants and corporate lawyers would earn over £80k a year
London (and you are in London) is very different from the rest of the UK. In Northern Ireland I'm aware of fully qualified accountants (albeit ones who want a quiet life) that earn £40k and are very happy.
According to TotalJobs, the average salary of a qualified accountant in the UK is £52,500. That is based on job adverts, so the true figure is higher of course.
Tasty numbers for a bit of a culture war against the anti-life, godless Marxist
I'm only half joking...
Most Catholics these days would see being godless and Marxist as, if anything, cause for supporting a candidate. In my parish, most Sunday Mass attenders remind me that Aquinas defended first-trimester abortions, and change the subject when the priest talks about coaches to Pro-Life marches. Same-sex marriage? "God gives to all of us the right to sin, and to none of us the right to judge"
But late-term abortion? That really IS a red line. Corbyn has just chosen just about the ONLY moral issue that'll upset a significant proportion of Catholics
Labour need to urgently clarify their abortion policy if they wish anyone remotely religious (or with a soul) to vote for them. https://righttolife.org.uk/news/labour-pledge-to-introduce-abortion-for-any-reason-up-to-birth/ These things are traditionally matters of conscience for MPs, and public opinion is that late abortions should be more restricted - rather than on-demand at 39 weeks.
ummm the LibDem policy is also to decriminalise abortion (haven't checked other parties yet). Most Conservative MPs chose not to vote against decriminalising abortion in Northern Ireland. So which party should anyone "with a soul vote" for these days?
So ther eis Surely, there is a difference between the decriminalising abortion in NI - and removing the time limit of 23 weeks and 6 days of pregnancy, in line with the Abortion Act 1967?
I don't think so. The Abortion Act 1967 never applied to Northern Ireland. Labour policy would bring England and Wales into line with the situation in Northern Ireland since October this year.
So there is now literally an abortion free-for-all in Northern Ireland, with no time limit? Any woman can turn up in Belfast and ask for a termination at eight and a half months? Just because, say, she doesn't like the sex of her baby?
Law formulated poorly in Northern Ireland, with obvious problems ignored by a GB mentality that knows little, cares less, and only gets involved when they become manifest?
Deeply concerning Labour is now committed to abortion on demand up to birth, that is something that could tip many religious Catholics especially towards the Tories who normally lean Labour
To be fair, Labour are pursuing diversity in their appeal to religious minorities. They've so far done an excellent job alienating Jews, they've made good progress in peeing off Hindus, and they are now turning their attention to alienating Catholics.
Although it probably perversely helps Labour, all these spurious allegations of being "anti-hindu" "anti-catholic", (what was it on here the other day - "homophobic"?) really dilute the anti-semitic message, and it make it much more likely for rational people to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Interesting that Sky News have just had a segment on the Muslim vote . I brought this up a few days ago , it’s crucial in some key marginals in the Midlands and parts of the north .
Doesn't it vote Labour, en masse and almost unquestioningly?
Generally yes , the Muslim vote is solidly behind Labour and Johnson has damaged the Tory cause with those voters . It’s key in around 31 marginal seats many of which are in the Midlands .
If I’m being blunt and just on the numbers Labour pissing off the Jewish community will cost them a few seats because there’s only around 400,000 Jews and Jewish descent in the UK and these are concentrated in just a few areas .
The Muslim population is around 3,500,000 and spread in more areas which have many Labour seats.
Pissing off that voter demographic would be very costly to Labour.
I wonder how that splits between North West and North East. Its a shame they've just lumped the two together, just as they've bizarrely lumped Midlands and Wales together.
Interesting that Sky News have just had a segment on the Muslim vote . I brought this up a few days ago , it’s crucial in some key marginals in the Midlands and parts of the north .
The Labour Party would decriminalise abortion in Britain, making it legal to have an abortion for any reason up to the birth of a child, a party spokeswoman has confirmed.
The party’s manifesto, launched today ahead of the December 12 general election, says: “We will uphold women’s reproductive rights and decriminalise abortions.”
A Labour spokeswoman confirmed to the Catholic Herald that this would mean the repeal of the relevant sections of the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act, which currently bans abortion.
If Labour want to make abortion legal for any reason the woman chooses, right up until she is about to give birth, how strange they didn't put it in their manifesto. How strange too that they seem unaware that the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act was amended by David Steel's Abortion Act 1967. What's more likely is that they want to end the Northern Ireland abortion ban and there was a proofreading error. Have CCHQ been on the phone to the Catholic Herald?
Here are the chances of a few high profile MPs LOSING, based on Ladbrokes's latest odds.
65% Chuka Umunna 36% Laura Pidcock 32% Iain Duncan Smith 30% Yvette Cooper 30% John Redwood 29% Jo Swinson 22% Boris Johnson 20% Jacob Rees-Mogg 18% Dominic Raab 17% Emily Thornberry
Here are the chances of a few high profile MPs LOSING, based on Ladbrokes's latest odds.
65% Chuka Umunna 36% Laura Pidcock 32% Iain Duncan Smith 30% Yvette Cooper 30% John Redwood 29% Jo Swinson 22% Boris Johnson 20% Jacob Rees-Mogg 18% Dominic Raab 17% Emily Thornberry
A few possible popcorn moments there but will anyone miss Chuka?
Comments
I have yet to see any stats showing the actual proportions paid by higher earners once those are taken into account, it would be very interesting (to some!).
I think a significant reduction of those reliefs (beyond a reasonable threshold, perhaps 20k a year like ISAs) would be far better than increasing the headline rates.
Surely its only fiscally neutral if you intend to re-privatise the shares in the future?
Buy dollars and gold!
Not sure some of the Tories recent behaviour hasn’t made their attacks more blunt .
Killing human babies in the womb - yeah, that’s okay, right up to 40 weeks.
That could just be in Tice's garden....
The roles of Shylock and Jessica are two of the most uncomfortable in the Bard's works. The Merchant of Venice was our O Level set play - 1976. Is it still used ?
The fair Portia truly was a racist.
I don’t want to be so unpleasantly graphic but that goes way beyond what’s morally and ethically acceptable, so this must be an oversight?
I don’t know anyone who’s arguing for such an “abortion” right. Even on the ultra free choice side.
These women getting abortions during labour or whatever only exist in your weird imagination.
Pregnant women are part of the many, their unborn children are part of the few.
Happy to have cleared that up.
On profit something like:
Warren + 1.2
Biden + 1.4
Sanders +0.2
Buttigieg +3.3
Klobuchar +6.4
Gabbard +3.7
The Field +3.7
Is any mainstream political journalist even aware of these changes? The reality is that supposedly expert journalists don't have the faintest idea about such elements of the tax system.
This is an absolutely massive open goal for the Conservatives yet they are completely failing to exploit it. It's extraordinary - why isn't every Conservative MP appearing in the media fully briefed on this and ramming the message home?
https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Real-Change-Labour-Manifesto-2019.pdf
"As we mentioned earlier, a member of the audience on last night's Question Time criticised Labour's policy of raising income taxes for people earning more than £80,000 on the grounds that it wouldn't be enough to put them in the top 5% of earners. Reality Check has been looking at the numbers."
Is BBC Reality Check aware of the changes to Dividend taxation and the marriage allowance?
If not, why not?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/election-2019-50511893
He also says that ever doctor, solicitor and accountant in the country earns over £80k, and the woman sitting next to him (I assume she is with him) certainly seems to believe that, judging from her reaction to a suggestion of a solicitor earning £40k.
I've been spending some time looking at the job market for accountants lately, and it's a rare job advert for a qualified accountant here that is offering anything like that amount.
It really does show how little people know about the earnings of other professions. I never stops them judging people though.
Maybe my Rule 3 for politics, that.
Personally, I see no reason why abortion law shouldn't be standardised across the whole of the UK.
They are only partly wrong
https://righttolife.org.uk/news/press-release-labour-pledge-to-introduce-abortion-up-to-birth/
Is any woman in the UK ever actually refused an abortion? Surely not.
I mean if someone decided they wanted an abortion two weeks before the "due" date the hospital would have to decide between a pillow and a lethal injection as to how they would stop the baby's heart.
I can't see any medical clinician being willing to agree to that....
The party’s manifesto, launched today ahead of the December 12 general election, says: “We will uphold women’s reproductive rights and decriminalise abortions.”
A Labour spokeswoman confirmed to the Catholic Herald that this would mean the repeal of the relevant sections of the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act, which currently bans abortion.
https://catholicherald.co.uk/news/2019/11/21/labour-would-totally-decriminalise-abortion-party-spokeswoman-confirms/
The issue is surely less about whether or not he’s in the top 5% of earners (he is) but the perception.
The fact is that if you’re on 80k yes you are in the top 5% but you inhabit that top 5% with a lot of people much wealthier than you, obscenely so in some cases. The term “top 5% of earners” does conjure up images of oligarchs and fat cats, but there will be some everyday working families in there too.
FWIW I think it’s all a little bit of a storm in a teacup. As with any tax policy if you’re going to be worse off because of the change you’re going to be angry about it.
http://www.brin.ac.uk/religious-affiliation-and-party-choice-at-the-2017-general-election/
It strikes me that all of the great religions have periods in their history when they have enabled, espoused or created pogroms against those of other faiths. Even Buddhism is doing it right now against the Rohinga. Hindus against Muslims and Sikhs. Muslim against Muslim and, in the days of Mohammed, pretty much everyone else.
I do not think this is a particularly useful line of argument
Either apply the law or change it to reflect how the system operates.
I'm only half joking...
The Labour proposal is just making abortion legal. I think Labour need to clarify what exactly the term limits they would think acceptable .
As for Northern Ireland, as I understand it just from newspaper reports and not being a lawyer, it is no longer a criminal offence to have an abortion - unlike in England and Wales where it is except in the circumstances allowed under the 1967 Act, I think.
The Labour manifesto appears to suggest that abortion is illegal - unless they mean to decriminalise all abortions, which clearly they don't because that would include backstreet ones.
The Abortion Act 1967 amended the Offences against the Person Act 1861.
Or are they only talking about Northern Ireland?
I think Ann Summers lingerie should be legal but I wouldn't expect a 4 year old to be looked after by someone wearing an Ann Summers outfit, would you?
What you choose to wear at home and what is suitable for work are not the same.
Their figure for solicitors is £42,500.
But late-term abortion? That really IS a red line. Corbyn has just chosen just about the ONLY moral issue that'll upset a significant proportion of Catholics
Because that's never ever happened before...
If I’m being blunt and just on the numbers Labour pissing off the Jewish community will cost them a few seats because there’s only around 400,000 Jews and Jewish descent in the UK and these are concentrated in just a few areas .
The Muslim population is around 3,500,000 and spread in more areas which have many Labour seats.
Pissing off that voter demographic would be very costly to Labour.
https://twitter.com/gsoh31/status/1197861378285023232?s=20
CON: 41.5% (+7.1)
SNP: 38.1% (-0.7)
IND: 12.7% (+3.3)
LDEM: 7.7% (+7.7)
Conservative HOLD.
Positive night for team blue last night, 2 gains and 2 holds
65% Chuka Umunna
36% Laura Pidcock
32% Iain Duncan Smith
30% Yvette Cooper
30% John Redwood
29% Jo Swinson
22% Boris Johnson
20% Jacob Rees-Mogg
18% Dominic Raab
17% Emily Thornberry