Just watching a bit more of Al-beeb honouring its name. On Burma, talk of "Buddhist mobs". How come we never hear of "Muslim mobs" (in Egypt, Christians and Muslims "battle" each other...). I also noticed they were at pains not to highlight the religion of the Boston Chechen bombers. (and no doubt hoping they would be from the "extreme right wing" and so hopefully safely Christian).
... It shows that the top 1% of income earners have paid a greater proportion of the total income tax yield in every year of this government than in any year of the previous Labour government(s) ...
There are two ways in which the top 1% of income earners can pay a greater proportion of the total income tax received by HMG.
1. Their relative tax rates can be increased compared to the 99%.
2. Their relative income can increase compared to the 99%.
From what I can recall, both have been happening under the Coalition. The large increase in the personal allowance has reduced income tax for those with incomes under ~£100k (roughly the 99%). At the same time, the incomes of the 1% have grown most strongly in recent years (one analysis I saw said that it was only the incomes of the 1% that had grown faster than inflation during this recovery from recession).
I can see the appeal to Tories of cutting taxes on the poor, rather than increasing taxes on the rich, to make the tax system more progressive, but I do wonder how much road is left for that strategy while the budget deficit is still above £100bn.
I don't see how all the benefits of economic growth accruing to the top 1% can be applauded by anyone [not in the 1%] even if it does lead to the 1% paying for a larger share of HMG income tax revenue.
What Farage is doing in relation to Romanians / Bulgarians in disgraceful in my opinion. But it's a free country.
What's disgraceful? Immigration is a perfectly legitimate subject for political debate, as is the fact we have no control over EU immigration with another potential wave coming.
"I’ve gone on the 30-40 option. 6/1 seems a good price."
Ukip vote is (imo) - socioeconomic middle who have no political representation - disgruntled Tories who are never going to get what they want while the national party has a metrosexual leadership - bitter ex labour
I don't know the area at all so judging simply by the size of the Labour majority i imagine the 3rd group is quite large but they won't all turn out unless they see enough of a groundswell to make their vote count and the other two components might be too small to create that groundswell.
and assuming half the LD vote represents the first component and up to half the Tory vote the second component that would be 17% on the same turnout plus the unknown percentage from the ex-labour component and people from all three who'd given up voting.
I'd have thought mid-20s but i guess it could just squeeze over 30.
Just look at the demographic shift in seats like Brent North, Ealing North, etc.
Maybe I am wrong, and they all vote Tory. But I doubt it.
ps-EU immigrants mostly cannot vote in GEs.
Why is the political affiliation of the immigrants relevant? Do you mean to say it's someway unfair that Labour disproportionately attracted would-be Labour voters into the country? Even as a Tory, I can't say I agree. If I could, I would convince them to vote Conservative, but that's not the point.
Socioeconomic status i.e. disproportionately low-skilled.
NuLabour handed out passports and so full voting rights like confetti to Third world immigrants. Figures are easily available, look them up. All Third world Commonwealth immigrants can also vote in GEs. A disgrace where there are no reciprocal rights.
Hear, hear. The Tories should immediately move to remove voting rights from Commonwealth citizens. It is very wrong they should be given a special advantage over other immigrants, particularly when, as you say, there is not reciprocity.
Something UKIP and the rest have to address: -we are members of the EEA (and so the EU free movement of trade and services) irrespective of EU membership. The EU only had a legal personality after the EEA was signed...So, leaving the EU would still leave us inside the EEA.
Unfortunately for UKIP the EEA also has free movement of people. Seems, without negotiations (which can lead anywhere) free trade comes with free movement of people. Switzerland is a member of the EEA in all but name but will a UKIP government really get the same opt out?
Something UKIP and the rest have to address: -we are members of the EEA (and so the EU free movement of trade and services) irrespective of EU membership. The EU only had a legal personality after the EEA was signed...So, leaving the EU would still leave us inside the EEA.
Unfortunately for UKIP the EEA also has free movement of people. Seems, without negotiations (which can lead anywhere) free trade comes with free movement of people. Switzerland is a member of the EEA in all but name but will a UKIP government really get the same opt out?
South Korea and Mexico have free trade without free movement of labour. That is what we should negotiate. Our best strategy would be to remain in the EEA while we negotiate other trade agreements: NAFTA, India, Japan and Brazil should be priorities. Once those are in place, we should have a better economic footing and more leverage to negotiate a bilateral deal with the EU.
"David Cameron has ruled out enshrining his controversial increase in aid spending in law this year, fuelling fears that he is preparing to ditch the pledge. ... The Queen’s Speech next month will omit the promised legislation to fix international development spending at 0.7 per cent of national output, The Times understands.
NuLabour handed out passports and so full voting rights like confetti to Third world immigrants. Figures are easily available, look them up. All Third world Commonwealth immigrants can also vote in GEs. A disgrace where there are no reciprocal rights.
Hear, hear. The Tories should immediately move to remove voting rights from Commonwealth citizens. It is very wrong they should be given a special advantage over other immigrants, particularly when, as you say, there is not reciprocity.
Of course, David Cameron doesn't have the balls.
Even if those Commonwealth citizens are married to British nationals, OR have paid tax for decades?
Immigrants are less likely to vote because EU immigrants can, on the whole, not vote. So a significant proportion are, or do not want to become, eligible.
NuLabour handed out passports and so full voting rights like confetti to Third world immigrants. Figures are easily available, look them up. All Third world Commonwealth immigrants can also vote in GEs. A disgrace where there are no reciprocal rights.
It would be an insult to Mandie to suppose he was not aware this would produce a Labour voting block.
The Labour vote went down in every election from 1997 onwards. There is absolutely no evidence that New Commonwealth voters arriving in the UK since 1997 have had any effect on the outcome of the result in any constituency.
EU immigrants are not entitled to vote in GEs. Immigrants who are able to vote are among the least likely to do so.
It is, indeed, within the current government's powers to change voting rights in the UK. Three years in, they have not chosen to do so.
The pound rose against the euro, following three weeks of losses, before a government report this week that economists said will show the U.K. avoided falling into a triple-dip recession last quarter.
Sterling advanced versus all except one of its 16 major counterparts as a person familiar with the plan said Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne will unveil the second phase of a strategy to boost loans for small companies and consumers. Gilts gained even after Fitch Ratings cut Britain’s credit rating last week. The Office for National Statistics will release its report on gross domestic product on Friday [correction: Wednesday].
GDP Forecasts:
Britain’s GDP expanded 0.1 percent in the first quarter after shrinking 0.3 percent in the previous three months, according to the median estimate of 37 economists surveyed by Bloomberg.
Gilts:
The 10-year gilt yield fell one basis point, or 0.01 percentage point, to 1.65 percent after falling to 1.64 percent, the lowest level since April 8.
Just look at the demographic shift in seats like Brent North, Ealing North, etc.
Maybe I am wrong, and they all vote Tory. But I doubt it.
ps-EU immigrants mostly cannot vote in GEs.
Why is the political affiliation of the immigrants relevant? Do you mean to say it's someway unfair that Labour disproportionately attracted would-be Labour voters into the country? Even as a Tory, I can't say I agree. If I could, I would convince them to vote Conservative, but that's not the point.
Socioeconomic status i.e. disproportionately low-skilled.
Therefore highly relevant in every way.
Meanwhile, in the real world
Britain’s foreign-born population includes a higher proportion of people with tertiary education (broadly, university graduates and above) than in almost any other OECD country (see chart 1 for a selected list and here for the full data). Incomers are much more likely to be highly educated than native Brits, and that gap is growing.
1) A "higher proportion with tertiary education" doesn't counter my point. If the native proportions of low/middle/high skilled was 40/40/20 and the immigrant proportions were 60/10/30 then that's still disproportionately low-skilled.
2) Does the number Britain's foreign-born population according to the Economist include all the people living in these sheds?
Just look at the demographic shift in seats like Brent North, Ealing North, etc.
Maybe I am wrong, and they all vote Tory. But I doubt it.
ps-EU immigrants mostly cannot vote in GEs.
Why is the political affiliation of the immigrants relevant? Do you mean to say it's someway unfair that Labour disproportionately attracted would-be Labour voters into the country? Even as a Tory, I can't say I agree. If I could, I would convince them to vote Conservative, but that's not the point.
Socioeconomic status i.e. disproportionately low-skilled.
Therefore highly relevant in every way.
Meanwhile, in the real world
Britain’s foreign-born population includes a higher proportion of people with tertiary education (broadly, university graduates and above) than in almost any other OECD country (see chart 1 for a selected list and here for the full data). Incomers are much more likely to be highly educated than native Brits, and that gap is growing.
1) A "higher proportion with tertiary education" doesn't counter my point. If the native proportions of low/middle/high skilled was 40/40/20 and the immigrant proportions were 60/10/30 then that's still disproportionately low-skilled.
2) Does the number Britain's foreign-born population according to the Economist include all the people living in these sheds?
Entirely right. The fact that there's a large bunch of high skilled people coming over to work in the City doesn't justify importing large numbers from rural parts of the Philippines. It certainly isn't a good argument against controlling immigration flows so we could further limit it to the higher skilled.
Just look at the demographic shift in seats like Brent North, Ealing North, etc.
Maybe I am wrong, and they all vote Tory. But I doubt it.
ps-EU immigrants mostly cannot vote in GEs.
Why is the political affiliation of the immigrants relevant? Do you mean to say it's someway unfair that Labour disproportionately attracted would-be Labour voters into the country? Even as a Tory, I can't say I agree. If I could, I would convince them to vote Conservative, but that's not the point.
Socioeconomic status i.e. disproportionately low-skilled.
Therefore highly relevant in every way.
Meanwhile, in the real world
Britain’s foreign-born population includes a higher proportion of people with tertiary education (broadly, university graduates and above) than in almost any other OECD country (see chart 1 for a selected list and here for the full data). Incomers are much more likely to be highly educated than native Brits, and that gap is growing.
1) A "higher proportion with tertiary education" doesn't counter my point. If the native proportions of low/middle/high skilled was 40/40/20 and the immigrant proportions were 60/10/30 then that's still disproportionately low-skilled.
2) Does the number Britain's foreign-born population according to the Economist include all the people living in these sheds?
Entirely right. The fact that there's a large bunch of high skilled people coming over to work in the City doesn't justify importing large numbers from rural parts of the Philippines. It certainly isn't a good argument against controlling immigration flows so we could further limit it to the higher skilled.
... It shows that the top 1% of income earners have paid a greater proportion of the total income tax yield in every year of this government than in any year of the previous Labour government(s) ...
There are two ways in which the top 1% of income earners can pay a greater proportion of the total income tax received by HMG.
1. Their relative tax rates can be increased compared to the 99%.
2. Their relative income can increase compared to the 99%.
From what I can recall, both have been happening under the Coalition. The large increase in the personal allowance has reduced income tax for those with incomes under ~£100k (roughly the 99%). At the same time, the incomes of the 1% have grown most strongly in recent years (one analysis I saw said that it was only the incomes of the 1% that had grown faster than inflation during this recovery from recession).
I can see the appeal to Tories of cutting taxes on the poor, rather than increasing taxes on the rich, to make the tax system more progressive, but I do wonder how much road is left for that strategy while the budget deficit is still above £100bn.
I don't see how all the benefits of economic growth accruing to the top 1% can be applauded by anyone [not in the 1%] even if it does lead to the 1% paying for a larger share of HMG income tax revenue.
There is a third way for the top 1% to pay a greater share of total income tax, namely that more high earners (earning above the average of those included in the top percentile) decide to become income tax resident in the UK.
You may feel that this is less significant than the two ways you identified, and I would probably agree, but it is after all one of the main justifications used by Osborne to introduce lower top rates of tax.
Not much to argue with in your post, but you do omit to mention the consequential investment and employment impact of this group of taxpayers.
What makes the cost benefit of the 45% top rate tax so difficult to calculate are the consequential and soft benefits rather than the mix of tax and related impositions.
Britain’s GDP expanded 0.1 percent in the first quarter after shrinking 0.3 percent in the previous three months, according to the median estimate of 37 economists surveyed by Bloomberg.
Bloody close, really, isn't it? But I guess if it does happen the positivity is the reward for the negativity around the last dip when the fall in the middle of the three quarter recession is now believed to have been -0.1%.
I think the Tories would have won Birmingham Edgbaston in 2010 if New Commonwealth immigrants weren't able to vote.
Why on Earth are they allowing this anachronism to continue?
Even if those Commonwealth citizens are married to British nationals, OR have paid tax to the UK Exchequer for decades?
There are plenty of immigrants from other countries that are married to British nationals and have paid tax to the UK Exchequer for decades. The fact is that UK citizens do not get reciprocal rights in these nations. If you wish to vote in the UK, you should undergo the process of becoming a UK citizen and swearing allegiance to this country.
Avery, 0.1% is nothing to write home about. Although, the ONS are on the point of revising away last year's "recession" completely.
On topic, 30% or so would be my guess for UKIP. Predictions I've read, of 100+, County Council seats are fanciful.
Off topic, for posters following Game of Thrones, I've just watched Daenerys saying (in effect) "meet my leetle friend" to the Astapor slave traders. An awesome scene.
I think the Tories would have won Birmingham Edgbaston in 2010 if New Commonwealth immigrants weren't able to vote.
Why on Earth are they allowing this anachronism to continue?
Even if those Commonwealth citizens are married to British nationals, OR have paid tax to the UK Exchequer for decades?
There are plenty of immigrants from other countries that are married to British nationals and have paid tax to the UK Exchequer for decades. The fact is that UK citizens do not get reciprocal rights in these nations. If you wish to vote in the UK, you should undergo the process of becoming a UK citizen and swearing allegiance to this country.
I thought you Americans believe in NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!
I think the Tories would have won Birmingham Edgbaston in 2010 if New Commonwealth immigrants weren't able to vote.
Why on Earth are they allowing this anachronism to continue?
I was replying to this assertion by SouthamObserver:
"There is absolutely no evidence that New Commonwealth voters arriving in the UK since 1997 have had any effect on the outcome of the result in any constituency."
There's no doubt Labour will win South Shields in 2015 no matter what happens in the by-election. Some Labour voters may use that fact to justify voting for a different party on May 2nd.
OT. Excellent attack by Margaret Hodge on Google and their position as advisor to David Cameron despite being tax avoiders. After reading about Carole and Sir Mark it seems endemic in those close to leading Tory party figures.
How I wish someone like Margaret Hodge had become leader of Labour rather than the too feeble character they have at the moment
Avery, 0.1% is nothing to write home about. Although, the ONS are on the point of revising away last year's "recession" completely.
On topic, 30% or so would be my guess for UKIP. Predictions I've read, of 100+, County Council seats are fanciful.
Off topic, for posters following Game of Thrones, I've just watched Daenerys saying (in effect) "meet my leetle friend" to the Astapor slave traders. An awesome scene.
Heh, i was guessing that was gonna happen - looking forward to it.
Avery, 0.1% is nothing to write home about. Although, the ONS are on the point of revising away last year's "recession" completely.
Sean
The difference between -0.1% and +0.1% GDP growth, may be neither statistically nor economically significant but it will determine the media narrative in the run up to the council elections. Headlines of "Triple Dip Recession" will not do the government any good at all. I realise that if the growth figures overshoot on the upside, Osborne will not be given nearly as much coverage, but the trickle effect of continuing good news will eventually get through to the public.
Far more important will be tomorrow's Public Finances figures. If they show that the underlying deficit has been reduced in Q1 2013 on flat growth then Osborne's fiscal consolidation plans will be shown to be credible and sustainable. There will be frantic revisions by the OBR and external forecasters to the longer term debt and deficit targets.
There are three other points to make about, say, about flat lined growth.
1. It demonstrates an improving trend on the -0.3% shrinkage in Q4 2012.
2. The direction of movement is opposite to that being experienced in continental Europe which is almost universally moving into deeper recession.
3. If combined growth and deficit reduction have occurred this will provide a sound platform for the banking sector reform and monetary stimulus due to follow later this year.
So all in all, I do think this week's stats are important.
I think the Tories would have won Birmingham Edgbaston in 2010 if New Commonwealth immigrants weren't able to vote.
Why on Earth are they allowing this anachronism to continue?
Even if those Commonwealth citizens are married to British nationals, OR have paid tax to the UK Exchequer for decades?
There are plenty of immigrants from other countries that are married to British nationals and have paid tax to the UK Exchequer for decades. The fact is that UK citizens do not get reciprocal rights in these nations. If you wish to vote in the UK, you should undergo the process of becoming a UK citizen and swearing allegiance to this country.
I thought you Americans believe in NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!
That, of course, applied at the community level, rather than at the individual level, given that universal suffrage did not exist at the time. Nor does it today: under 18s can work and pay tax yet do not get the vote. I don't think it's unreasonable that those choosing the government of this country should have allegiance to it.
HYUFD, it's an interesting article, but Dawkins' belief in the "selfishness " of genes has always been intended metaphorically, and never meant to be an endorsement of liberal economics. Dawkins himself is a socialist.
Britain’s GDP expanded 0.1 percent in the first quarter after shrinking 0.3 percent in the previous three months, according to the median estimate of 37 economists surveyed by Bloomberg.
Bloody close, really, isn't it? But I guess if it does happen the positivity is the reward for the negativity around the last dip when the fall in the middle of the three quarter recession is now believed to have been -0.1%.
Unfortunately 'good news' will never get the same weight of coverage as 'bad news'. Both the BBC and Sky having been banging on about the risk of a "triple dip recession" for days in the lead up to the release of the growth figures.
If GDP is down the coverage will go on for days.
If GDP is up, the BBC will announce it at 9:30 am and it will be moved down the headlines by the end of the day and dropped by midnight.
Sky no doubt will show Conway interviewing a cleaner at London's IMF office on Osborne's ticketing arrangements for train travel.
I'm expecting it to be about 28% UKIP. According to my parents who are in Shields at the moment the only people they've seen is UKIP and Labour so you can probably discount the others to the real hardcore voters only.
There are no council elections in Shields this year so the only people voting are going out to vote on the by-election. So its a question of how much is a protest vote against all parties (UKIP) and how much is a protest against the government (just stay at home).
Given that the 6/1 for a 30%+ share is very decent odds. anything up to 2/1 is plausible.
I think the Tories would have won Birmingham Edgbaston in 2010 if New Commonwealth immigrants weren't able to vote.
Why on Earth are they allowing this anachronism to continue?
Even if those Commonwealth citizens are married to British nationals, OR have paid tax to the UK Exchequer for decades?
There are plenty of immigrants from other countries that are married to British nationals and have paid tax to the UK Exchequer for decades. The fact is that UK citizens do not get reciprocal rights in these nations. If you wish to vote in the UK, you should undergo the process of becoming a UK citizen and swearing allegiance to this country.
I thought you Americans believe in NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!
That, of course, applied at the community level, rather than at the individual level, given that universal suffrage did not exist at the time. Nor does it today: under 18s can work and pay tax yet do not get the vote. I don't think it's unreasonable that those choosing the government of this country should have allegiance to it.
So are you really suggesting that they get a massive tax and NI refund then? My mum, for example has been working in the UK for 30 years this year.
"Thought you were a tax exile? Or in true Labour tradition believe tax is only for the little people?"
I am not a tax exile and in an old fashioned way believe that unreasonable tax avoidance is quite immoral.
My point politically was that if there is one thing people resent more than benefit scrounging (actually much more) it's tax avoidance by the rich. Why the pussy footed leader of Labour leaves it to Margaret Hodge I can't imagine. The sooner he's ditched for someone more politically savvy the better
I think the Tories would have won Birmingham Edgbaston in 2010 if New Commonwealth immigrants weren't able to vote.
Why on Earth are they allowing this anachronism to continue?
Even if those Commonwealth citizens are married to British nationals, OR have paid tax to the UK Exchequer for decades?
There are plenty of immigrants from other countries that are married to British nationals and have paid tax to the UK Exchequer for decades. The fact is that UK citizens do not get reciprocal rights in these nations. If you wish to vote in the UK, you should undergo the process of becoming a UK citizen and swearing allegiance to this country.
I thought you Americans believe in NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!
That, of course, applied at the community level, rather than at the individual level, given that universal suffrage did not exist at the time. Nor does it today: under 18s can work and pay tax yet do not get the vote. I don't think it's unreasonable that those choosing the government of this country should have allegiance to it.
So are you really suggesting that they get a massive tax and NI refund then? My mum, for example has been working in the UK for 30 years this year.
No, I'm not. If your mother has been working in the UK for three decades, presumably she has been eligible for citizenship for a long time. I don't particularly see why an immigrant from India should get more rights than an immigrant from the USA.
Australia aside, I'm not sure that any Western country has done particularly well, economically, since 2010. Our relative experience doesn't seem too bad.
I think the Tories would have won Birmingham Edgbaston in 2010 if New Commonwealth immigrants weren't able to vote.
Why on Earth are they allowing this anachronism to continue?
Even if those Commonwealth citizens are married to British nationals, OR have paid tax to the UK Exchequer for decades?
There are plenty of immigrants from other countries that are married to British nationals and have paid tax to the UK Exchequer for decades. The fact is that UK citizens do not get reciprocal rights in these nations. If you wish to vote in the UK, you should undergo the process of becoming a UK citizen and swearing allegiance to this country.
I thought you Americans believe in NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!
That, of course, applied at the community level, rather than at the individual level, given that universal suffrage did not exist at the time. Nor does it today: under 18s can work and pay tax yet do not get the vote. I don't think it's unreasonable that those choosing the government of this country should have allegiance to it.
So are you really suggesting that they get a massive tax and NI refund then? My mum, for example has been working in the UK for 30 years this year.
No, I'm not. If your mother has been working in the UK for three decades, presumably she has been eligible for citizenship for a long time. I don't particularly see why an immigrant from India should get more rights than an immigrant from the USA.
Because unlike India, the US broke with the Crown?
If I had my way I'd let the US and Ireland and any other country with English as a de facto or de jure national language join the Commonwealth.
PS - no such thing as "New" or "Old" - purely racist terms. There can be only one Commonwealth!
@SeanF: Off topic, for posters following Game of Thrones, I've just watched Daenerys saying (in effect) "meet my leetle friend" to the Astapor slave traders. An awesome scene.
I've just finished watching all 10 episodes of season 2. Very good for television but there is so much more in the books. Sigh! I was waiting to see Tyrion's nose chopped off though, sadly only a slash around the face. can't have it all it seems.
I think the Tories would have won Birmingham Edgbaston in 2010 if New Commonwealth immigrants weren't able to vote.
Why on Earth are they allowing this anachronism to continue?
Even if those Commonwealth citizens are married to British nationals, OR have paid tax to the UK Exchequer for decades?
There are plenty of immigrants from other countries that are married to British nationals and have paid tax to the UK Exchequer for decades. The fact is that UK citizens do not get reciprocal rights in these nations. If you wish to vote in the UK, you should undergo the process of becoming a UK citizen and swearing allegiance to this country.
I thought you Americans believe in NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!
That, of course, applied at the community level, rather than at the individual level, given that universal suffrage did not exist at the time. Nor does it today: under 18s can work and pay tax yet do not get the vote. I don't think it's unreasonable that those choosing the government of this country should have allegiance to it.
So are you really suggesting that they get a massive tax and NI refund then? My mum, for example has been working in the UK for 30 years this year.
No, I'm not. If your mother has been working in the UK for three decades, presumably she has been eligible for citizenship for a long time. I don't particularly see why an immigrant from India should get more rights than an immigrant from the USA.
Because unlike India, the US broke with the Crown?
If I had my way I'd let the US and Ireland and any other country with English as a de facto or de jure national language join the Commonwealth.
PS - no such thing as "New" or "Old" - purely racist terms. There can be only one Commonwealth!
India broke with the Crown! It's a republic don't you know!
As for the "new" or "old" commonwealth terms, I think they have relevance in terms of income levels and their histories (in terms of when they were given self-governance).
There's no doubt Labour will win South Shields in 2015 no matter what happens in the by-election. Some Labour voters may use that fact to justify voting for a different party on May 2nd.
Thats a laugh. If UKIP actually won South Shields it would produce a political earthquake of such proportions as to change immediately the dynamic of politics in this country, perhaps for years. (Edit)
Osborne needs growth and lots of it, in fact it is pretty much impossible for the electorate to go into the next election as well off as they were in real terms in 2010.
People will be worse off after 5 years of coalition. Osborne has failed so so much.
Neil, apparently some Rudd supporters are going to have another go at ousting her in June if the polls stay the same, they would need to have a clear majority for their man though and force Gillard out, Rudd has made clear he will not launch another doomed leadership bid himself!
I think the Tories would have won Birmingham Edgbaston in 2010 if New Commonwealth immigrants weren't able to vote.
Why on Earth are they allowing this anachronism to continue?
Even if those Commonwealth citizens are married to British nationals, OR have paid tax to the UK Exchequer for decades?
There are plenty of immigrants from other countries that are married to British nationals and have paid tax to the UK Exchequer for decades. The fact is that UK citizens do not get reciprocal rights in these nations. If you wish to vote in the UK, you should undergo the process of becoming a UK citizen and swearing allegiance to this country.
I thought you Americans believe in NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!
That, of course, applied at the community level, rather than at the individual level, given that universal suffrage did not exist at the time. Nor does it today: under 18s can work and pay tax yet do not get the vote. I don't think it's unreasonable that those choosing the government of this country should have allegiance to it.
So are you really suggesting that they get a massive tax and NI refund then? My mum, for example has been working in the UK for 30 years this year.
No, I'm not. If your mother has been working in the UK for three decades, presumably she has been eligible for citizenship for a long time. I don't particularly see why an immigrant from India should get more rights than an immigrant from the USA.
Because unlike India, the US broke with the Crown?
If I had my way I'd let the US and Ireland and any other country with English as a de facto or de jure national language join the Commonwealth.
PS - no such thing as "New" or "Old" - purely racist terms. There can be only one Commonwealth!
India broke with the Crown! It's a republic don't you know!
As for the "new" or "old" commonwealth terms, I think they have relevance in terms of income levels and their histories (in terms of when they were given self-governance).
George VI was still King of India (as opposed to Emperor!) immediately after independence, from 1947-1950. India agreed to remain in THE Commonwealth (remember, there can be only one!) in exchange for being able to become a republic on 26th Jan 1950.
IOS, I think people expected the recession of 2008/09 to have an impact on their standard of living. At present, I think there are very few people who expect their incomes to rise the way they did in the 80's and 90's.
David Cameron: I love Guinness, darts and Sky+ • Tory leader reaches out to voters with interviews with GMTV, Woman's Hour and men's magazine • Says he may consider all-women shortlists again before the election
, Thursday 18 February 2010 11.55 GMT
It's been a while since the fop amused us all with one of his 'man of the people' PR triumphs. Perhaps after the May locals Osbrowne can persuade him to don flat cap and braces and eat a pot of jellied eels while shopping at camden market for peppers?
"Francois Hollande is most unpopular French president since Charles de Gaulle at height of 1968 riots"
I remember Mitterand on French TV being told that there was a poll which showed that only 20% approved of him and 80% didn't so what did he have to say and he replied that as he had three years of his presidency to run that was the electors problem not his.
David Cameron: I love Guinness, darts and Sky+ • Tory leader reaches out to voters with interviews with GMTV, Woman's Hour and men's magazine • Says he may consider all-women shortlists again before the election
, Thursday 18 February 2010 11.55 GMT
It's been a while since the fop amused us all with one of his 'man of the people' PR triumphs.
Perhaps after the May locals Osbrowne can persuade him to don flat cap and braces and eat a pot of jellied eels while shopping at camden market for peppers?
I think the Tories would have won Birmingham Edgbaston in 2010 if New Commonwealth immigrants weren't able to vote.
Why on Earth are they allowing this anachronism to continue?
Even if those Commonwealth citizens are married to British nationals, OR have paid tax to the UK Exchequer for decades?
There are plenty of immigrants from other countries that are married to British nationals and have paid tax to the UK Exchequer for decades. The fact is that UK citizens do not get reciprocal rights in these nations. If you wish to vote in the UK, you should undergo the process of becoming a UK citizen and swearing allegiance to this country.
I thought you Americans believe in NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!
That, of course, applied at the community level, rather than at the individual level, given that universal suffrage did not exist at the time. Nor does it today: under 18s can work and pay tax yet do not get the vote. I don't think it's unreasonable that those choosing the government of this country should have allegiance to it.
So are you really suggesting that they get a massive tax and NI refund then? My mum, for example has been working in the UK for 30 years this year.
No, I'm not. If your mother has been working in the UK for three decades, presumably she has been eligible for citizenship for a long time. I don't particularly see why an immigrant from India should get more rights than an immigrant from the USA.
Because unlike India, the US broke with the Crown?
If I had my way I'd let the US and Ireland and any other country with English as a de facto or de jure national language join the Commonwealth.
PS - no such thing as "New" or "Old" - purely racist terms. There can be only one Commonwealth!
India broke with the Crown! It's a republic don't you know!
As for the "new" or "old" commonwealth terms, I think they have relevance in terms of income levels and their histories (in terms of when they were given self-governance).
George VI was still King of India (as opposed to Emperor!) immediately after independence, from 1947-1950. India agreed to remain in THE Commonwealth (remember, there can be only one!) in exchange for being able to become a republic on 26th Jan 1950.
But they did break with the crown in 1950 when they became a republic. There's also the case that the reason the US had to break with the crown, despite swearing allegiance on a number of occasions during the dispute, was because Westminster didn't give autonomy in the way it later did for India!
That was the point Seth. Sorry it went over your head like so much else.
Oh, Seth O Logue, as laughable a figure as Cammie clearly is it will still only be lunatics like yourself that ever thought Lansley had a chance of being PM.
Mike K, books are almost always more subtle than TV or Film. Tyrion and Daenerys are *far* darker and much more morally ambiguous in the books than in the series.
Comments
If nothing else this is a useful hedge against too good a UKIP performance if you have backed them to come second.
Missed the sixes but happily took 5/1.
What Farage is doing in relation to Romanians / Bulgarians in disgraceful in my opinion. But it's a free country.
1. Their relative tax rates can be increased compared to the 99%.
2. Their relative income can increase compared to the 99%.
From what I can recall, both have been happening under the Coalition. The large increase in the personal allowance has reduced income tax for those with incomes under ~£100k (roughly the 99%). At the same time, the incomes of the 1% have grown most strongly in recent years (one analysis I saw said that it was only the incomes of the 1% that had grown faster than inflation during this recovery from recession).
I can see the appeal to Tories of cutting taxes on the poor, rather than increasing taxes on the rich, to make the tax system more progressive, but I do wonder how much road is left for that strategy while the budget deficit is still above £100bn.
I don't see how all the benefits of economic growth accruing to the top 1% can be applauded by anyone [not in the 1%] even if it does lead to the 1% paying for a larger share of HMG income tax revenue.
6:27PM
I think rarely do I agree with you. 4m coming over? Pleeease!
On the other hand would it be politically acceptable to have said the same were Bulgarians and Romanians not 1) white, 2) "Christian". Possibly not.
Ukip vote is (imo)
- socioeconomic middle who have no political representation
- disgruntled Tories who are never going to get what they want while the national party has a metrosexual leadership
- bitter ex labour
I don't know the area at all so judging simply by the size of the Labour majority i imagine the 3rd group is quite large but they won't all turn out unless they see enough of a groundswell to make their vote count and the other two components might be too small to create that groundswell.
Going simply by this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Shields_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
and assuming half the LD vote represents the first component and up to half the Tory vote the second component that would be 17% on the same turnout plus the unknown percentage from the ex-labour component and people from all three who'd given up voting.
I'd have thought mid-20s but i guess it could just squeeze over 30.
Therefore highly relevant in every way.
Of course, David Cameron doesn't have the balls.
6:36PM
Something UKIP and the rest have to address:
-we are members of the EEA (and so the EU free movement of trade and services) irrespective of EU membership. The EU only had a legal personality after the EEA was signed...So, leaving the EU would still leave us inside the EEA.
Unfortunately for UKIP the EEA also has free movement of people. Seems, without negotiations (which can lead anywhere) free trade comes with free movement of people. Switzerland is a member of the EEA in all but name but will a UKIP government really get the same opt out?
"David Cameron has ruled out enshrining his controversial increase in aid spending in law this year, fuelling fears that he is preparing to ditch the pledge. ... The Queen’s Speech next month will omit the promised legislation to fix international development spending at 0.7 per cent of national output, The Times understands.
Cons to lose deposit at 7/2? less than 10% 4/5?
LDs to lose deposit at 5/6?
You could combine the 20s over 40% and the 5s over 30% for an ew bets rather than back them to win
*EDIT probably not as they could win by getting under 40%
http://overland.org.au/blogs/loudspeaker/2013/04/is-richard-dawkins-responsible-for-thatcherism/
EU immigrants are not entitled to vote in GEs. Immigrants who are able to vote are among the least likely to do so.
It is, indeed, within the current government's powers to change voting rights in the UK. Three years in, they have not chosen to do so.
Sterling:
The pound rose against the euro, following three weeks of losses, before a government report this week that economists said will show the U.K. avoided falling into a triple-dip recession last quarter.
Sterling advanced versus all except one of its 16 major counterparts as a person familiar with the plan said Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne will unveil the second phase of a strategy to boost loans for small companies and consumers. Gilts gained even after Fitch Ratings cut Britain’s credit rating last week. The Office for National Statistics will release its report on gross domestic product on Friday [correction: Wednesday].
GDP Forecasts:
Britain’s GDP expanded 0.1 percent in the first quarter after shrinking 0.3 percent in the previous three months, according to the median estimate of 37 economists surveyed by Bloomberg.
Gilts:
The 10-year gilt yield fell one basis point, or 0.01 percentage point, to 1.65 percent after falling to 1.64 percent, the lowest level since April 8.
Will tim and BenM be betting against the markets?
2) Does the number Britain's foreign-born population according to the Economist include all the people living in these sheds?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2049676/Welcome-Slums-Southall-How-unscrupulous-landlords-illegally-built-squalid-homes-immigrants.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21574772
I'm guessing not.
You may feel that this is less significant than the two ways you identified, and I would probably agree, but it is after all one of the main justifications used by Osborne to introduce lower top rates of tax.
Not much to argue with in your post, but you do omit to mention the consequential investment and employment impact of this group of taxpayers.
What makes the cost benefit of the 45% top rate tax so difficult to calculate are the consequential and soft benefits rather than the mix of tax and related impositions.
Avery, 0.1% is nothing to write home about. Although, the ONS are on the point of revising away last year's "recession" completely.
On topic, 30% or so would be my guess for UKIP. Predictions I've read, of 100+, County Council seats are fanciful.
Off topic, for posters following Game of Thrones, I've just watched Daenerys saying (in effect) "meet my leetle friend" to the Astapor slave traders. An awesome scene.
"There is absolutely no evidence that New Commonwealth voters arriving in the UK since 1997 have had any effect on the outcome of the result in any constituency."
How I wish someone like Margaret Hodge had become leader of Labour rather than the too feeble character they have at the moment
Train porn BBC 4 730-900
6:46PM
Haha! - "fears".
6:46PM
Possibly. But some of the degrees have as much validity as those from the UK FE colleges which are immigration fronts.
If Stewart feels alone it could be because people dont like his company.
"PS this Business for Britain advert is really pissing me off, especially on an iPhone."
It could be worse. You could have ads for "SpeediCath compact discreet male catheters"
I struggle to think of an ad better designed to piss someone off.
The difference between -0.1% and +0.1% GDP growth, may be neither statistically nor economically significant but it will determine the media narrative in the run up to the council elections. Headlines of "Triple Dip Recession" will not do the government any good at all. I realise that if the growth figures overshoot on the upside, Osborne will not be given nearly as much coverage, but the trickle effect of continuing good news will eventually get through to the public.
Far more important will be tomorrow's Public Finances figures. If they show that the underlying deficit has been reduced in Q1 2013 on flat growth then Osborne's fiscal consolidation plans will be shown to be credible and sustainable. There will be frantic revisions by the OBR and external forecasters to the longer term debt and deficit targets.
There are three other points to make about, say, about flat lined growth.
1. It demonstrates an improving trend on the -0.3% shrinkage in Q4 2012.
2. The direction of movement is opposite to that being experienced in continental Europe which is almost universally moving into deeper recession.
3. If combined growth and deficit reduction have occurred this will provide a sound platform for the banking sector reform and monetary stimulus due to follow later this year.
So all in all, I do think this week's stats are important.
7:46PM
Thought you were a tax exile? Or in true Labour tradition believe tax is only for the little people?
8:03PM
Not as much as Tony. Or, did anyone ever find his missing expense claims?
http://static.guim.co.uk/ni/1366653704344/363201342213441988148.pdf
If GDP is down the coverage will go on for days.
If GDP is up, the BBC will announce it at 9:30 am and it will be moved down the headlines by the end of the day and dropped by midnight.
Sky no doubt will show Conway interviewing a cleaner at London's IMF office on Osborne's ticketing arrangements for train travel.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22258191
There are no council elections in Shields this year so the only people voting are going out to vote on the by-election. So its a question of how much is a protest vote against all parties (UKIP) and how much is a protest against the government (just stay at home).
Given that the 6/1 for a 30%+ share is very decent odds. anything up to 2/1 is plausible.
Would you prefer to swap Osborne's performance with that of Spain? ... or Italy? ... or France? ... or even Germany?
8:17PM
Wonder if they are Mormons or Swedish Lutherans? Story does not specify. Not being a betting man (sic), but....
I understand you have a bet @ 6/4 on there being positive growth in Q1 2013.
I could throw a dart at a map of the world and be confident that I'd prefer the performance of wherever it landed.
"Thought you were a tax exile? Or in true Labour tradition believe tax is only for the little people?"
I am not a tax exile and in an old fashioned way believe that unreasonable tax avoidance is quite immoral.
My point politically was that if there is one thing people resent more than benefit scrounging (actually much more) it's tax avoidance by the rich. Why the pussy footed leader of Labour leaves it to Margaret Hodge I can't imagine. The sooner he's ditched for someone more politically savvy the better
If I had my way I'd let the US and Ireland and any other country with English as a de facto or de jure national language join the Commonwealth.
PS - no such thing as "New" or "Old" - purely racist terms. There can be only one Commonwealth!
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2013/04/22/newspoll-55-45-to-coalition-8/
You can make a judgement, and carefully choose the immigrants most likely to grow the economy.
Off topic, for posters following Game of Thrones, I've just watched Daenerys saying (in effect) "meet my leetle friend" to the Astapor slave traders. An awesome scene.
I've just finished watching all 10 episodes of season 2. Very good for television but there is so much more in the books. Sigh! I was waiting to see Tyrion's nose chopped off though, sadly only a slash around the face. can't have it all it seems.
Just wait for Gillard to be replaced again!
As for the "new" or "old" commonwealth terms, I think they have relevance in terms of income levels and their histories (in terms of when they were given self-governance).
Mine was merely a semi-serious reply to Avery's semi-serious question
What could possibly go wrong?
People will be worse off after 5 years of coalition. Osborne has failed so so much.
Roger is in advertising not product warranty.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2312906/Hollande-unpopular-French-president-Charles-Gaulle-height-1968-riots.html
Is that a game?
It's preferable to sticking a ferret down your trousers!
Perhaps after the May locals Osbrowne can persuade him to don flat cap and braces and eat a pot of jellied eels while shopping at camden market for peppers?
Osborne promised to abolish the deficit.It is currently higher. He promised growth of potentially 4 & 5% in 2014 & 2015.
He has been a disaster.
"Francois Hollande is most unpopular French president since Charles de Gaulle at height of 1968 riots"
I remember Mitterand on French TV being told that there was a poll which showed that only 20% approved of him and 80% didn't so what did he have to say and he replied that as he had three years of his presidency to run that was the electors problem not his.
Oh, Seth O Logue, as laughable a figure as Cammie clearly is it will still only be lunatics like yourself that ever thought Lansley had a chance of being PM.