Per betfair SPD have won. Thanks to @NickPalmer for the tip when it was 1.3.
If true then Boris will indeed be the only conservative leader left in the G7 apart from Japan (if you count the LDP as conservative which is debatable given their name).
The last time there was only 1 conservative in the G7 was Chirac from 1998-2000, again an equally charismatic figure like Boris able to defy the western tide to the centre left
I am not sure if you have noticed, but Boris has moved noticeably to the left so there is only Japan left then
He is still the leader of the main Conservative Party in the UK and his cut to UC and ending of free movement from the EU for example are hardly centre left actions.
Though yes he has positioned himself generally in the relative centre ground
Time for for Rishi to ameliorate the UC cut but he is left of centre and some distance from the right of the party
He is not left of centre, he is centrist on economics, populist on culture and social issues, he is miles away from Rayner and Corbyn.
He is not a pure Thatcherite but then most Tory PMs aren't
Social issues not even etched on the yardstick. Kate Hoey went hunting, but was rightly in the Labour Party for how she voted on economic questions.
Social issues are the yardstick which makes you a conservative as well as support for inheritance, being economically Thatcherite could make you a classical liberal as much as a conservative
I hope the rumours that Rishi is looking at inheritance tax are true
If they are he can kiss goodbye to any chance of any hope of being Tory leader and PM, there would be a revolution amongst Tory MPs and grassroots and we would lose our poll lead.
As May discovered in 2017 threatening to take peoples' inheritance is electoral suicide.
As Osborne discovered in 2007 however IHT cut proposals are extremely popular
Another nonsense post to be rowed back on when it happens
A rise in inheritance tax is a red line, the Tory Party has always been the party that has supported inherited wealth no matter what.
There would be a huge revolt from members and MPs in the home counties and posh parts of London and rightly so, Boris would probably have to sack him. Hence he will not do it
Can I ask you a hypothetical question.
If it was proveable that a rise in inheritance tax resulted in better social mobility and economic growth, would you still oppose it?
Yes because it is not conservative and anti family and anti preservation of wealth within the family.
Not that it would anyway, you improve social mobility by improving education standards and choice and getting more middle class jobs available not by taking peoples houses. You get economic growth by cutting taxes across the board not raising them
People relying on inheritance or family handouts does not 'improve social mobility'. It makes it harder for those from poorer backgrounds to get on!
😠
No it doesn't, you don't improve social mobility by taking peoples' family homes you just end up with even lower home ownership.
Thatcher's council house sales was a measure that actually did improve social mobility, as did the expansion of white collar jobs in the 1950s and 1960s and as did many grammar schools
We are not talking about 'taking people's homes'. Those fortunate enough to have these inheritances which they have got worked for ie unearned wealth need to pay a fair share in tax.
Also applies to those getting large capital transfers from mummy and daddy eg to buy properties etc.
We need to sort out the state of the nation's finances and proper tax on unearned wealth needs to be a key part of that.
You are talking about most under 65s in London and the SE here, south of Watford the average paid worker can only buy a property or get a deposit to buy a property with parental assistance or inheritance now.
Remove that and the Tories would face a 1997 style wipeout as their heartland vote collapsed.
Estates over £1 million still pay IHT anyway
Gosh, I really hope both you and Big G are right:
Big G - Rishi will definitely raise IHT HYUFD - if he does, Tories will face a 1997 style wipeout.
Drinks all round!
If the Tories raise IHT even I would have to think about staying home at the next general election, it would be such a betrayal of Tory principles and large numbers of Tories round here would feel the same and stay home or vote ReformUK in protest.
Hence Boris would not do it
I really do not think you staying at home will be on either Boris or Rishi mind to be honest
The prospect of millions of Tory voters in London and the South like me doing the same however or going LD or RefUK might, it would collapse the Blue Wall as badly as the Red Wall went in 2019
The family threshold is 1 million IHT free and you are objecting to IHT change is just pure greed
Per betfair SPD have won. Thanks to @NickPalmer for the tip when it was 1.3.
If true then Boris will indeed be the only conservative leader left in the G7 apart from Japan (if you count the LDP as conservative which is debatable given their name).
The last time there was only 1 conservative in the G7 was Chirac from 1998-2000, again an equally charismatic figure like Boris able to defy the western tide to the centre left
I am not sure if you have noticed, but Boris has moved noticeably to the left so there is only Japan left then
He is still the leader of the main Conservative Party in the UK and his cut to UC and ending of free movement from the EU for example are hardly centre left actions.
Though yes he has positioned himself generally in the relative centre ground
Time for for Rishi to ameliorate the UC cut but he is left of centre and some distance from the right of the party
He is not left of centre, he is centrist on economics, populist on culture and social issues, he is miles away from Rayner and Corbyn.
He is not a pure Thatcherite but then most Tory PMs aren't
Social issues not even etched on the yardstick. Kate Hoey went hunting, but was rightly in the Labour Party for how she voted on economic questions.
Social issues are the yardstick which makes you a conservative as well as support for inheritance, being economically Thatcherite could make you a classical liberal as much as a conservative
I hope the rumours that Rishi is looking at inheritance tax are true
If they are he can kiss goodbye to any chance of any hope of being Tory leader and PM, there would be a revolution amongst Tory MPs and grassroots and we would lose our poll lead.
As May discovered in 2017 threatening to take peoples' inheritance is electoral suicide.
As Osborne discovered in 2007 however IHT cut proposals are extremely popular
Another nonsense post to be rowed back on when it happens
A rise in inheritance tax is a red line, the Tory Party has always been the party that has supported inherited wealth no matter what.
There would be a huge revolt from members and MPs in the home counties and posh parts of London and rightly so, Boris would probably have to sack him. Hence he will not do it
Can I ask you a hypothetical question.
If it was proveable that a rise in inheritance tax resulted in better social mobility and economic growth, would you still oppose it?
Yes because it is not conservative and anti family and anti preservation of wealth within the family.
Not that it would anyway, you improve social mobility by improving education standards and choice and getting more middle class jobs available not by taking peoples houses. You get economic growth by cutting taxes across the board not raising them
People relying on inheritance or family handouts does not 'improve social mobility'. It makes it harder for those from poorer backgrounds to get on!
😠
No it doesn't, you don't improve social mobility by taking peoples' family homes you just end up with even lower home ownership.
Thatcher's council house sales was a measure that actually did improve social mobility, as did the expansion of white collar jobs in the 1950s and 1960s and as did many grammar schools
We are not talking about 'taking people's homes'. Those fortunate enough to have these inheritances which they have got worked for ie unearned wealth need to pay a fair share in tax.
Also applies to those getting large capital transfers from mummy and daddy eg to buy properties etc.
We need to sort out the state of the nation's finances and proper tax on unearned wealth needs to be a key part of that.
You are talking about most under 65s in London and the SE here, south of Watford the average paid worker can only buy a property or get a deposit to buy a property with parental assistance or inheritance now.
Remove that and the Tories would face a 1997 style wipeout as their heartland vote collapsed.
Estates over £1 million still pay IHT anyway
Gosh, I really hope both you and Big G are right:
Big G - Rishi will definitely raise IHT HYUFD - if he does, Tories will face a 1997 style wipeout.
Drinks all round!
If the Tories raise IHT even I would have to think about staying home at the next general election, it would be such a betrayal of Tory principles and large numbers of Tories round here would feel the same and stay home or vote ReformUK in protest.
Hence Boris would not do it
I really do not think you staying at home will be on either Boris or Rishi mind to be honest
The prospect of millions of Tory voters in London and the South like me doing the same however or going LD or RefUK might, it would collapse the Blue Wall as badly as the Red Wall went in 2019
The family threshold is 1 million IHT free and you are objecting to IHT change is just pure greed
Yes but if he lowered the threshold below 1 million then the Tories would have real problems, reversing the Osborne IHT cut would be electoral suicide
Per betfair SPD have won. Thanks to @NickPalmer for the tip when it was 1.3.
If true then Boris will indeed be the only conservative leader left in the G7 apart from Japan (if you count the LDP as conservative which is debatable given their name).
The last time there was only 1 conservative in the G7 was Chirac from 1998-2000, again an equally charismatic figure like Boris able to defy the western tide to the centre left
I am not sure if you have noticed, but Boris has moved noticeably to the left so there is only Japan left then
He is still the leader of the main Conservative Party in the UK and his cut to UC and ending of free movement from the EU for example are hardly centre left actions.
Though yes he has positioned himself generally in the relative centre ground
Time for for Rishi to ameliorate the UC cut but he is left of centre and some distance from the right of the party
He is not left of centre, he is centrist on economics, populist on culture and social issues, he is miles away from Rayner and Corbyn.
He is not a pure Thatcherite but then most Tory PMs aren't
Social issues not even etched on the yardstick. Kate Hoey went hunting, but was rightly in the Labour Party for how she voted on economic questions.
Social issues are the yardstick which makes you a conservative as well as support for inheritance, being economically Thatcherite could make you a classical liberal as much as a conservative
I hope the rumours that Rishi is looking at inheritance tax are true
If they are he can kiss goodbye to any chance of any hope of being Tory leader and PM, there would be a revolution amongst Tory MPs and grassroots and we would lose our poll lead.
As May discovered in 2017 threatening to take peoples' inheritance is electoral suicide.
As Osborne discovered in 2007 however IHT cut proposals are extremely popular
Another nonsense post to be rowed back on when it happens
And I think what polling on this we have the general population back on on this Big G.
However, where HY might be right, an important section of Tory support may be in the oppose column?
As long as it keeps them in their seats they will not complain but what @HYUFD is blinded on, is that the country have moved as a body left wanting more covid regulations and lockdowns if necessary and absolutely spending on the NHS and social care, and listening to him at the UN he is really pushing climate change for all its worth which is very much today's topic
For all his faults, Boris understands this and is moving onto that agenda and if some of his right wingers complain then he will just carry on anyway
59% of voters think inheritance tax is unfair, including 67% of Conservative voters, it is the most unpopular tax there is
If the CDU had chosen a less voter-repellent leader, they'd have walked this, wouldn't they?
They might have got a few more %-points, but "walked it" is certainly an over exaggeration,
A few more points was all they needed to stay in power
Stay in power is what May did in 2017, walked it was what Johnson did in 2019. Do you not see a difference?
Both won most seats and stayed in power, Soder would have done the same, probably by a margin bigger than May's over the main centre left party albeit smaller than Boris'.
Laschet it seems will not even stay in power and come second on seats
And probably will not even win a seat in parliament.
If the CDU had chosen a less voter-repellent leader, they'd have walked this, wouldn't they?
Indeed, if Scholz does become chancellor, Soder is nailed on for Union chancellor candidate in 2025 given Laschet's defeat
4 years is a long time to find another leader. The CSU is not liked by much of Germany.
The last 2 times the CDU chancellor candidate lost an election, 1976 and 1998, the Union candidate at the next election was from the CSU. Strauss in 1980 and Stoiber in 2002.
Given this will be Laschet and the CDU's defeat the CSU will likely refuse to back any candidate but Soder next time
Stoiber was the candidate in 2002 because of sexism in the CDU as well as a pragmatic decision by Merkel that Schröder would win so it was better to let another male rival carry the can.
Stoiber was just 3 seats behind Schroder in that election and tied on votes
Well Stoiber only got 4,3 million votes, but Schröder got 18,5 million votes.
The Union which Stoiber led got 18.482 million votes, Schroder got 18.488 million votes
No. You said that Stoiber got as many votes ar Schröder, but it is on record that his party only got 4.3 million votes.
He was Union chancellor candidate, so yes he got as many votes percentage wise as Schroder as a vote for the CDU or CSU was a vote for Stoiber
Have I missed something on the rule change that Starmer has won that have shattered the Left?
20% threshold of MPs nominations.
Labour only have 199 MPs - so a Corbyn type would need basically exactly the same number of signatures as he did in 2015 ≈ 36 vs 39
All else being equal, getting 36 nominees from 232 is considerably easier than 39 nominees from 199. Some of the lost seats would include those who would have been on that side (eg Pidcock).
Worth remembering in 2015 that Corbyn only got to the 36 because Margaret Beckett chose to sign the nomination paper "to widen the debate" and came to deeply regret it. The same mistake should not happen again next time, but people do tend to forget to learn from history.
Minor point but wouldn't it require 40 MPs to achieve a 20% threshold of 199?
Edit: And isn't 35 sufficient to achieve 15% of 232?. Thus it's 35 versus 40.
It depends if you round up or down. If the rule is "rounding down" then 20% of 199 is 39.
There's no basis for that. 20% of 199 is 39.8, no more, no less. 39 MPs is not enough, 40 is. Simples.
Jokes aside, you cannot have part of a real MP to round up, or down.
Per betfair SPD have won. Thanks to @NickPalmer for the tip when it was 1.3.
If true then Boris will indeed be the only conservative leader left in the G7 apart from Japan (if you count the LDP as conservative which is debatable given their name).
The last time there was only 1 conservative in the G7 was Chirac from 1998-2000, again an equally charismatic figure like Boris able to defy the western tide to the centre left
I am not sure if you have noticed, but Boris has moved noticeably to the left so there is only Japan left then
He is still the leader of the main Conservative Party in the UK and his cut to UC and ending of free movement from the EU for example are hardly centre left actions.
Though yes he has positioned himself generally in the relative centre ground
Time for for Rishi to ameliorate the UC cut but he is left of centre and some distance from the right of the party
He is not left of centre, he is centrist on economics, populist on culture and social issues, he is miles away from Rayner and Corbyn.
He is not a pure Thatcherite but then most Tory PMs aren't
Social issues not even etched on the yardstick. Kate Hoey went hunting, but was rightly in the Labour Party for how she voted on economic questions.
Social issues are the yardstick which makes you a conservative as well as support for inheritance, being economically Thatcherite could make you a classical liberal as much as a conservative
I hope the rumours that Rishi is looking at inheritance tax are true
If they are he can kiss goodbye to any chance of any hope of being Tory leader and PM, there would be a revolution amongst Tory MPs and grassroots and we would lose our poll lead.
As May discovered in 2017 threatening to take peoples' inheritance is electoral suicide.
As Osborne discovered in 2007 however IHT cut proposals are extremely popular
Another nonsense post to be rowed back on when it happens
A rise in inheritance tax is a red line, the Tory Party has always been the party that has supported inherited wealth no matter what.
There would be a huge revolt from members and MPs in the home counties and posh parts of London and rightly so, Boris would probably have to sack him. Hence he will not do it
Can I ask you a hypothetical question.
If it was proveable that a rise in inheritance tax resulted in better social mobility and economic growth, would you still oppose it?
Yes because it is not conservative and anti family and anti preservation of wealth within the family.
Not that it would anyway, you improve social mobility by improving education standards and choice and getting more middle class jobs available not by taking peoples houses. You get economic growth by cutting taxes across the board not raising them
People relying on inheritance or family handouts does not 'improve social mobility'. It makes it harder for those from poorer backgrounds to get on!
😠
No it doesn't, you don't improve social mobility by taking peoples' family homes you just end up with even lower home ownership.
Thatcher's council house sales was a measure that actually did improve social mobility, as did the expansion of white collar jobs in the 1950s and 1960s and as did many grammar schools
We are not talking about 'taking people's homes'. Those fortunate enough to have these inheritances which they have got worked for ie unearned wealth need to pay a fair share in tax.
Also applies to those getting large capital transfers from mummy and daddy eg to buy properties etc.
We need to sort out the state of the nation's finances and proper tax on unearned wealth needs to be a key part of that.
You are talking about most under 65s in London and the SE here, south of Watford the average paid worker can only buy a property or get a deposit to buy a property with parental assistance or inheritance now.
Remove that and the Tories would face a 1997 style wipeout as their heartland vote collapsed.
Estates over £1 million still pay IHT anyway
Gosh, I really hope both you and Big G are right:
Big G - Rishi will definitely raise IHT HYUFD - if he does, Tories will face a 1997 style wipeout.
Drinks all round!
If the Tories raise IHT even I would have to think about staying home at the next general election, it would be such a betrayal of Tory principles and large numbers of Tories round here would feel the same and stay home or vote ReformUK in protest.
Hence Boris would not do it
I really do not think you staying at home will be on either Boris or Rishi mind to be honest
The prospect of millions of Tory voters in London and the South like me doing the same however or going LD or RefUK might, it would collapse the Blue Wall as badly as the Red Wall went in 2019
The family threshold is 1 million IHT free and you are objecting to IHT change is just pure greed
Yes but if he lowered the threshold below 1 million then the Tories would have real problems, reversing the Osborne IHT cut would be electoral suicide
Not really. Politics has moved on a lot in the past decade.
The median house in the red wall is about £150k. There's no need for a £1m threshold there - not that there's any reason why there should be a threshold at all.
I wonder how it'd work if there were to be rules similar to CGT - all inheritances are taxed in full as income, but the primary home that was lived in is exempt. Nothing else exempt.
Would stop having to try to align thresholds with houses.
Have I missed something on the rule change that Starmer has won that have shattered the Left?
20% threshold of MPs nominations.
Labour only have 199 MPs - so a Corbyn type would need basically exactly the same number of signatures as he did in 2015 ≈ 36 vs 39
All else being equal, getting 36 nominees from 232 is considerably easier than 39 nominees from 199. Some of the lost seats would include those who would have been on that side (eg Pidcock).
Worth remembering in 2015 that Corbyn only got to the 36 because Margaret Beckett chose to sign the nomination paper "to widen the debate" and came to deeply regret it. The same mistake should not happen again next time, but people do tend to forget to learn from history.
Minor point but wouldn't it require 40 MPs to achieve a 20% threshold of 199?
Edit: And isn't 35 sufficient to achieve 15% of 232?. Thus it's 35 versus 40.
It depends if you round up or down. If the rule is "rounding down" then 20% of 199 is 39.
There's no basis for that. 20% of 199 is 39.8, no more, no less. 39 MPs is not enough, 40 is. Simples.
Jokes aside, you cannot have part of a real MP to round up, or down.
Indeed but the rules might say "20% rounded down".
Its not unusual for rules to explicitly say whether rounding should be up or down.
Per betfair SPD have won. Thanks to @NickPalmer for the tip when it was 1.3.
If true then Boris will indeed be the only conservative leader left in the G7 apart from Japan (if you count the LDP as conservative which is debatable given their name).
The last time there was only 1 conservative in the G7 was Chirac from 1998-2000, again an equally charismatic figure like Boris able to defy the western tide to the centre left
I am not sure if you have noticed, but Boris has moved noticeably to the left so there is only Japan left then
He is still the leader of the main Conservative Party in the UK and his cut to UC and ending of free movement from the EU for example are hardly centre left actions.
Though yes he has positioned himself generally in the relative centre ground
Time for for Rishi to ameliorate the UC cut but he is left of centre and some distance from the right of the party
He is not left of centre, he is centrist on economics, populist on culture and social issues, he is miles away from Rayner and Corbyn.
He is not a pure Thatcherite but then most Tory PMs aren't
Social issues not even etched on the yardstick. Kate Hoey went hunting, but was rightly in the Labour Party for how she voted on economic questions.
Social issues are the yardstick which makes you a conservative as well as support for inheritance, being economically Thatcherite could make you a classical liberal as much as a conservative
I hope the rumours that Rishi is looking at inheritance tax are true
If they are he can kiss goodbye to any chance of any hope of being Tory leader and PM, there would be a revolution amongst Tory MPs and grassroots and we would lose our poll lead.
As May discovered in 2017 threatening to take peoples' inheritance is electoral suicide.
As Osborne discovered in 2007 however IHT cut proposals are extremely popular
Another nonsense post to be rowed back on when it happens
And I think what polling on this we have the general population back on on this Big G.
However, where HY might be right, an important section of Tory support may be in the oppose column?
As long as it keeps them in their seats they will not complain but what @HYUFD is blinded on, is that the country have moved as a body left wanting more covid regulations and lockdowns if necessary and absolutely spending on the NHS and social care, and listening to him at the UN he is really pushing climate change for all its worth which is very much today's topic
For all his faults, Boris understands this and is moving onto that agenda and if some of his right wingers complain then he will just carry on anyway
59% of voters think inheritance tax is unfair, including 67% of Conservative voters, it is the most unpopular tax there is
If the CDU had chosen a less voter-repellent leader, they'd have walked this, wouldn't they?
Indeed, if Scholz does become chancellor, Soder is nailed on for Union chancellor candidate in 2025 given Laschet's defeat
4 years is a long time to find another leader. The CSU is not liked by much of Germany.
The last 2 times the CDU chancellor candidate lost an election, 1976 and 1998, the Union candidate at the next election was from the CSU. Strauss in 1980 and Stoiber in 2002.
Given this will be Laschet and the CDU's defeat the CSU will likely refuse to back any candidate but Soder next time
Stoiber was the candidate in 2002 because of sexism in the CDU as well as a pragmatic decision by Merkel that Schröder would win so it was better to let another male rival carry the can.
Stoiber was just 3 seats behind Schroder in that election and tied on votes
Well Stoiber only got 4,3 million votes, but Schröder got 18,5 million votes.
The Union which Stoiber led got 18.482 million votes, Schroder got 18.488 million votes
No. You said that Stoiber got as many votes ar Schröder, but it is on record that his party only got 4.3 million votes.
He was Union chancellor candidate, so yes he got as many votes percentage wise as Schroder as a vote for the CDU or CSU was a vote for Stoiber
But the CSU are always insistent that they are another party. That is why the CDU and CSU both hat podiums at the debates on Thursday, and at the "leader's post election debate" earlier this evening.
Per betfair SPD have won. Thanks to @NickPalmer for the tip when it was 1.3.
If true then Boris will indeed be the only conservative leader left in the G7 apart from Japan (if you count the LDP as conservative which is debatable given their name).
The last time there was only 1 conservative in the G7 was Chirac from 1998-2000, again an equally charismatic figure like Boris able to defy the western tide to the centre left
I am not sure if you have noticed, but Boris has moved noticeably to the left so there is only Japan left then
He is still the leader of the main Conservative Party in the UK and his cut to UC and ending of free movement from the EU for example are hardly centre left actions.
Though yes he has positioned himself generally in the relative centre ground
Time for for Rishi to ameliorate the UC cut but he is left of centre and some distance from the right of the party
He is not left of centre, he is centrist on economics, populist on culture and social issues, he is miles away from Rayner and Corbyn.
He is not a pure Thatcherite but then most Tory PMs aren't
Social issues not even etched on the yardstick. Kate Hoey went hunting, but was rightly in the Labour Party for how she voted on economic questions.
Social issues are the yardstick which makes you a conservative as well as support for inheritance, being economically Thatcherite could make you a classical liberal as much as a conservative
I hope the rumours that Rishi is looking at inheritance tax are true
If they are he can kiss goodbye to any chance of any hope of being Tory leader and PM, there would be a revolution amongst Tory MPs and grassroots and we would lose our poll lead.
As May discovered in 2017 threatening to take peoples' inheritance is electoral suicide.
As Osborne discovered in 2007 however IHT cut proposals are extremely popular
Another nonsense post to be rowed back on when it happens
A rise in inheritance tax is a red line, the Tory Party has always been the party that has supported inherited wealth no matter what.
There would be a huge revolt from members and MPs in the home counties and posh parts of London and rightly so, Boris would probably have to sack him. Hence he will not do it
Can I ask you a hypothetical question.
If it was proveable that a rise in inheritance tax resulted in better social mobility and economic growth, would you still oppose it?
Yes because it is not conservative and anti family and anti preservation of wealth within the family.
Not that it would anyway, you improve social mobility by improving education standards and choice and getting more middle class jobs available not by taking peoples houses. You get economic growth by cutting taxes across the board not raising them
People relying on inheritance or family handouts does not 'improve social mobility'. It makes it harder for those from poorer backgrounds to get on!
😠
No it doesn't, you don't improve social mobility by taking peoples' family homes you just end up with even lower home ownership.
Thatcher's council house sales was a measure that actually did improve social mobility, as did the expansion of white collar jobs in the 1950s and 1960s and as did many grammar schools
We are not talking about 'taking people's homes'. Those fortunate enough to have these inheritances which they have got worked for ie unearned wealth need to pay a fair share in tax.
Also applies to those getting large capital transfers from mummy and daddy eg to buy properties etc.
We need to sort out the state of the nation's finances and proper tax on unearned wealth needs to be a key part of that.
You are talking about most under 65s in London and the SE here, south of Watford the average paid worker can only buy a property or get a deposit to buy a property with parental assistance or inheritance now.
Remove that and the Tories would face a 1997 style wipeout as their heartland vote collapsed.
Estates over £1 million still pay IHT anyway
Gosh, I really hope both you and Big G are right:
Big G - Rishi will definitely raise IHT HYUFD - if he does, Tories will face a 1997 style wipeout.
Drinks all round!
If the Tories raise IHT even I would have to think about staying home at the next general election, it would be such a betrayal of Tory principles and large numbers of Tories round here would feel the same and stay home or vote ReformUK in protest.
Hence Boris would not do it
I really do not think you staying at home will be on either Boris or Rishi mind to be honest
The prospect of millions of Tory voters in London and the South like me doing the same however or going LD or RefUK might, it would collapse the Blue Wall as badly as the Red Wall went in 2019
The family threshold is 1 million IHT free and you are objecting to IHT change is just pure greed
Yes but if he lowered the threshold below 1 million then the Tories would have real problems, reversing the Osborne IHT cut would be electoral suicide
Not really. Politics has moved on a lot in the past decade.
The median house in the red wall is about £150k. There's no need for a £1m threshold there - not that there's any reason why there should be a threshold at all.
I wonder how it'd work if there were to be rules similar to CGT - all inheritances are taxed in full as income, but the primary home that was lived in is exempt. Nothing else exempt.
Would stop having to try to align thresholds with houses.
Your suggestion is great for the SE and London, less so for the red wall
Per betfair SPD have won. Thanks to @NickPalmer for the tip when it was 1.3.
If true then Boris will indeed be the only conservative leader left in the G7 apart from Japan (if you count the LDP as conservative which is debatable given their name).
The last time there was only 1 conservative in the G7 was Chirac from 1998-2000, again an equally charismatic figure like Boris able to defy the western tide to the centre left
I am not sure if you have noticed, but Boris has moved noticeably to the left so there is only Japan left then
He is still the leader of the main Conservative Party in the UK and his cut to UC and ending of free movement from the EU for example are hardly centre left actions.
Though yes he has positioned himself generally in the relative centre ground
Time for for Rishi to ameliorate the UC cut but he is left of centre and some distance from the right of the party
He is not left of centre, he is centrist on economics, populist on culture and social issues, he is miles away from Rayner and Corbyn.
He is not a pure Thatcherite but then most Tory PMs aren't
Social issues not even etched on the yardstick. Kate Hoey went hunting, but was rightly in the Labour Party for how she voted on economic questions.
Social issues are the yardstick which makes you a conservative as well as support for inheritance, being economically Thatcherite could make you a classical liberal as much as a conservative
I hope the rumours that Rishi is looking at inheritance tax are true
If they are he can kiss goodbye to any chance of any hope of being Tory leader and PM, there would be a revolution amongst Tory MPs and grassroots and we would lose our poll lead.
As May discovered in 2017 threatening to take peoples' inheritance is electoral suicide.
As Osborne discovered in 2007 however IHT cut proposals are extremely popular
Another nonsense post to be rowed back on when it happens
A rise in inheritance tax is a red line, the Tory Party has always been the party that has supported inherited wealth no matter what.
There would be a huge revolt from members and MPs in the home counties and posh parts of London and rightly so, Boris would probably have to sack him. Hence he will not do it
Can I ask you a hypothetical question.
If it was proveable that a rise in inheritance tax resulted in better social mobility and economic growth, would you still oppose it?
Yes because it is not conservative and anti family and anti preservation of wealth within the family.
Not that it would anyway, you improve social mobility by improving education standards and choice and getting more middle class jobs available not by taking peoples houses. You get economic growth by cutting taxes across the board not raising them
People relying on inheritance or family handouts does not 'improve social mobility'. It makes it harder for those from poorer backgrounds to get on!
😠
No it doesn't, you don't improve social mobility by taking peoples' family homes you just end up with even lower home ownership.
Thatcher's council house sales was a measure that actually did improve social mobility, as did the expansion of white collar jobs in the 1950s and 1960s and as did many grammar schools
We are not talking about 'taking people's homes'. Those fortunate enough to have these inheritances which they have got worked for ie unearned wealth need to pay a fair share in tax.
Also applies to those getting large capital transfers from mummy and daddy eg to buy properties etc.
We need to sort out the state of the nation's finances and proper tax on unearned wealth needs to be a key part of that.
You are talking about most under 65s in London and the SE here, south of Watford the average paid worker can only buy a property or get a deposit to buy a property with parental assistance or inheritance now.
Remove that and the Tories would face a 1997 style wipeout as their heartland vote collapsed.
Estates over £1 million still pay IHT anyway
Gosh, I really hope both you and Big G are right:
Big G - Rishi will definitely raise IHT HYUFD - if he does, Tories will face a 1997 style wipeout.
Drinks all round!
If the Tories raise IHT even I would have to think about staying home at the next general election, it would be such a betrayal of Tory principles and large numbers of Tories round here would feel the same and stay home or vote ReformUK in protest.
Hence Boris would not do it
I really do not think you staying at home will be on either Boris or Rishi mind to be honest
The prospect of millions of Tory voters in London and the South like me doing the same however or going LD or RefUK might, it would collapse the Blue Wall as badly as the Red Wall went in 2019
The family threshold is 1 million IHT free and you are objecting to IHT change is just pure greed
Yes but if he lowered the threshold below 1 million then the Tories would have real problems, reversing the Osborne IHT cut would be electoral suicide
Not really. Politics has moved on a lot in the past decade.
The median house in the red wall is about £150k. There's no need for a £1m threshold there - not that there's any reason why there should be a threshold at all.
I wonder how it'd work if there were to be rules similar to CGT - all inheritances are taxed in full as income, but the primary home that was lived in is exempt. Nothing else exempt.
Would stop having to try to align thresholds with houses.
The Tories cannot win a majority just with the RedWall, remember Labour still won the North overall in 2019.
The Tories can only win a majority by holding their southern BlueWall seats and adding their 2019 RedWall gains. Lose seats in the Home Counties like Chesham and beyond to the LDs and lose marginal seats in London to Starmer Labour and the Tory majority is gone even if they hold all their RedWall seats.
They might get away with a primary home exemption, although there would be some losses still from the Tory vore vote, they would not if it is included in an IHT rise
Oh I see that CDU and CSU are listed as two different parties!
Isn't this just the same as Labour vs Labour Co-Op?
No. CDU stand everywhere except in Bavaria. CSU stand ok Bavaria only. They are similar but not the same. Eg I believe CSU are a little more social conservative.
Per betfair SPD have won. Thanks to @NickPalmer for the tip when it was 1.3.
If true then Boris will indeed be the only conservative leader left in the G7 apart from Japan (if you count the LDP as conservative which is debatable given their name).
The last time there was only 1 conservative in the G7 was Chirac from 1998-2000, again an equally charismatic figure like Boris able to defy the western tide to the centre left
I am not sure if you have noticed, but Boris has moved noticeably to the left so there is only Japan left then
He is still the leader of the main Conservative Party in the UK and his cut to UC and ending of free movement from the EU for example are hardly centre left actions.
Though yes he has positioned himself generally in the relative centre ground
Time for for Rishi to ameliorate the UC cut but he is left of centre and some distance from the right of the party
He is not left of centre, he is centrist on economics, populist on culture and social issues, he is miles away from Rayner and Corbyn.
He is not a pure Thatcherite but then most Tory PMs aren't
Social issues not even etched on the yardstick. Kate Hoey went hunting, but was rightly in the Labour Party for how she voted on economic questions.
Social issues are the yardstick which makes you a conservative as well as support for inheritance, being economically Thatcherite could make you a classical liberal as much as a conservative
I hope the rumours that Rishi is looking at inheritance tax are true
If they are he can kiss goodbye to any chance of any hope of being Tory leader and PM, there would be a revolution amongst Tory MPs and grassroots and we would lose our poll lead.
As May discovered in 2017 threatening to take peoples' inheritance is electoral suicide.
As Osborne discovered in 2007 however IHT cut proposals are extremely popular
Another nonsense post to be rowed back on when it happens
And I think what polling on this we have the general population back on on this Big G.
However, where HY might be right, an important section of Tory support may be in the oppose column?
As long as it keeps them in their seats they will not complain but what @HYUFD is blinded on, is that the country have moved as a body left wanting more covid regulations and lockdowns if necessary and absolutely spending on the NHS and social care, and listening to him at the UN he is really pushing climate change for all its worth which is very much today's topic
For all his faults, Boris understands this and is moving onto that agenda and if some of his right wingers complain then he will just carry on anyway
59% of voters think inheritance tax is unfair, including 67% of Conservative voters, it is the most unpopular tax there is
Oh I see that CDU and CSU are listed as two different parties!
Isn't this just the same as Labour vs Labour Co-Op?
No. CDU stand everywhere except in Bavaria. CSU stand ok Bavaria only. They are similar but not the same. Eg I believe CSU are a little more social conservative.
OK, but there's no doubt whatsoever that they form a grouping in the parliament? The distinction seems immaterial at that level.
Per betfair SPD have won. Thanks to @NickPalmer for the tip when it was 1.3.
If true then Boris will indeed be the only conservative leader left in the G7 apart from Japan (if you count the LDP as conservative which is debatable given their name).
The last time there was only 1 conservative in the G7 was Chirac from 1998-2000, again an equally charismatic figure like Boris able to defy the western tide to the centre left
I am not sure if you have noticed, but Boris has moved noticeably to the left so there is only Japan left then
He is still the leader of the main Conservative Party in the UK and his cut to UC and ending of free movement from the EU for example are hardly centre left actions.
Though yes he has positioned himself generally in the relative centre ground
Time for for Rishi to ameliorate the UC cut but he is left of centre and some distance from the right of the party
He is not left of centre, he is centrist on economics, populist on culture and social issues, he is miles away from Rayner and Corbyn.
He is not a pure Thatcherite but then most Tory PMs aren't
Social issues not even etched on the yardstick. Kate Hoey went hunting, but was rightly in the Labour Party for how she voted on economic questions.
Social issues are the yardstick which makes you a conservative as well as support for inheritance, being economically Thatcherite could make you a classical liberal as much as a conservative
I hope the rumours that Rishi is looking at inheritance tax are true
If they are he can kiss goodbye to any chance of any hope of being Tory leader and PM, there would be a revolution amongst Tory MPs and grassroots and we would lose our poll lead.
As May discovered in 2017 threatening to take peoples' inheritance is electoral suicide.
As Osborne discovered in 2007 however IHT cut proposals are extremely popular
Another nonsense post to be rowed back on when it happens
A rise in inheritance tax is a red line, the Tory Party has always been the party that has supported inherited wealth no matter what.
There would be a huge revolt from members and MPs in the home counties and posh parts of London and rightly so, Boris would probably have to sack him. Hence he will not do it
Can I ask you a hypothetical question.
If it was proveable that a rise in inheritance tax resulted in better social mobility and economic growth, would you still oppose it?
Yes because it is not conservative and anti family and anti preservation of wealth within the family.
Not that it would anyway, you improve social mobility by improving education standards and choice and getting more middle class jobs available not by taking peoples houses. You get economic growth by cutting taxes across the board not raising them
People relying on inheritance or family handouts does not 'improve social mobility'. It makes it harder for those from poorer backgrounds to get on!
😠
No it doesn't, you don't improve social mobility by taking peoples' family homes you just end up with even lower home ownership.
Thatcher's council house sales was a measure that actually did improve social mobility, as did the expansion of white collar jobs in the 1950s and 1960s and as did many grammar schools
We are not talking about 'taking people's homes'. Those fortunate enough to have these inheritances which they have got worked for ie unearned wealth need to pay a fair share in tax.
Also applies to those getting large capital transfers from mummy and daddy eg to buy properties etc.
We need to sort out the state of the nation's finances and proper tax on unearned wealth needs to be a key part of that.
You are talking about most under 65s in London and the SE here, south of Watford the average paid worker can only buy a property or get a deposit to buy a property with parental assistance or inheritance now.
Remove that and the Tories would face a 1997 style wipeout as their heartland vote collapsed.
Estates over £1 million still pay IHT anyway
Gosh, I really hope both you and Big G are right:
Big G - Rishi will definitely raise IHT HYUFD - if he does, Tories will face a 1997 style wipeout.
Drinks all round!
If the Tories raise IHT even I would have to think about staying home at the next general election, it would be such a betrayal of Tory principles and large numbers of Tories round here would feel the same and stay home or vote ReformUK in protest.
Hence Boris would not do it
I really do not think you staying at home will be on either Boris or Rishi mind to be honest
The prospect of millions of Tory voters in London and the South like me doing the same however or going LD or RefUK might, it would collapse the Blue Wall as badly as the Red Wall went in 2019
The family threshold is 1 million IHT free and you are objecting to IHT change is just pure greed
Yes but if he lowered the threshold below 1 million then the Tories would have real problems, reversing the Osborne IHT cut would be electoral suicide
Not really. Politics has moved on a lot in the past decade.
The median house in the red wall is about £150k. There's no need for a £1m threshold there - not that there's any reason why there should be a threshold at all.
I wonder how it'd work if there were to be rules similar to CGT - all inheritances are taxed in full as income, but the primary home that was lived in is exempt. Nothing else exempt.
Would stop having to try to align thresholds with houses.
Your suggestion is great for the SE and London, less so for the red wall
I did think about that. But still I don't think many people up here think about an inheritance over a million - or even anything like that - and think more tax on that would be unreasonable.
Either way though I don't see any reason why unearned income should be lighter taxed than earned income. Raise IHT, merge NI and Income Tax, and lower the overall rate for workers - and let people keep their rewards of actually working for a living.
Oh I see that CDU and CSU are listed as two different parties!
Isn't this just the same as Labour vs Labour Co-Op?
No. CDU stand everywhere except in Bavaria. CSU stand ok Bavaria only. They are similar but not the same. Eg I believe CSU are a little more social conservative.
OK, but there's no doubt whatsoever that they form a grouping in the parliament? The distinction seems immaterial at that level.
Per betfair SPD have won. Thanks to @NickPalmer for the tip when it was 1.3.
If true then Boris will indeed be the only conservative leader left in the G7 apart from Japan (if you count the LDP as conservative which is debatable given their name).
The last time there was only 1 conservative in the G7 was Chirac from 1998-2000, again an equally charismatic figure like Boris able to defy the western tide to the centre left
I am not sure if you have noticed, but Boris has moved noticeably to the left so there is only Japan left then
I said that earlier, but HY and others disagreed with me. HY said some rubbish about its not an international yardstick, but yardstick for each nation. Which is rubbish and it means US Dems are ‘left’ on basis they are to the left of GOP.
You are absolutely right Big G, Boris is nationalising, Biden will never consider, that is the sort of thing the yardstick is measured on.
You can choose one metric to compare two politicians on, and make one appear more left than the other. But taken across the piece, Biden is to the left of Boris, no question.
I’m definitely questioning that! You are wrong. It’s who you vote with on economics, tax and spend, nationalise privatise, welfare or cut welfare that really matters, and that puts Biden and most Dems much to the right of Boris.
Who you vote with is entirely irrelevant, what you vote for is what counts. Look down this nice summary. Much of what's in there falls into the first two categories: 1. Yes, I could imagine Boris doing that. 2. No, that's probably too left wing for Boris. 3. No, that's probably too right wing for Boris. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Joe_Biden#Tax
Thanks I had a look. I stand by what I said. UK and US in different place as nations. The US more right wing, more capitalist. They don’t have a left right split in politics like we have, two right of centre parties in relation to capitalism and socialism GOP and Dem voting actually come from the Civil War.
Boris Downing Street is to the left economically to Biden’s White House.
No it isn't, Biden is left of Boris. Though you could equally make the argument that the Nordic countries conservative parties are sometimes left of the UK Labour Party, certainly New Labour let alone the Tories.
The US is the most rightwing nation in the western world on most issues (apart from maybe Switzerland) so obviously its politics are more rightwing. I would accept Boris is left of Trump however he is not left of Biden and certainly not left of Sanders.
When we had Thatcher as PM though she was so rightwing in UK terms she was even right of the GOP president in her final term, Bush Snr
Would you call New Labour centre left or centre? They were without doubt centre right on the economic yardstick.
Really? So introducing the minimum wage, pumping huge amounts of money into the public sector (schools, hospitals, Sure Start etc. etc.) and increasing the state pension significantly is centre right economics?
The Torys introduced the Living Wage and the Triple Lock, trumping two of those. The economics of that from right of centre government. How much huge amounts of investment was PPP, literally handing money over to corporate sector former colleagues and mates, some schools hospitals actually at over the odds on the never never still being paid for by tax payers today?
What did 13 years of landslide Labour government actually nationalise? And privatising went on, even hospitals.
Per betfair SPD have won. Thanks to @NickPalmer for the tip when it was 1.3.
If true then Boris will indeed be the only conservative leader left in the G7 apart from Japan (if you count the LDP as conservative which is debatable given their name).
The last time there was only 1 conservative in the G7 was Chirac from 1998-2000, again an equally charismatic figure like Boris able to defy the western tide to the centre left
I am not sure if you have noticed, but Boris has moved noticeably to the left so there is only Japan left then
He is still the leader of the main Conservative Party in the UK and his cut to UC and ending of free movement from the EU for example are hardly centre left actions.
Though yes he has positioned himself generally in the relative centre ground
Time for for Rishi to ameliorate the UC cut but he is left of centre and some distance from the right of the party
He is not left of centre, he is centrist on economics, populist on culture and social issues, he is miles away from Rayner and Corbyn.
He is not a pure Thatcherite but then most Tory PMs aren't
Social issues not even etched on the yardstick. Kate Hoey went hunting, but was rightly in the Labour Party for how she voted on economic questions.
Social issues are the yardstick which makes you a conservative as well as support for inheritance, being economically Thatcherite could make you a classical liberal as much as a conservative
I hope the rumours that Rishi is looking at inheritance tax are true
If they are he can kiss goodbye to any chance of any hope of being Tory leader and PM, there would be a revolution amongst Tory MPs and grassroots and we would lose our poll lead.
As May discovered in 2017 threatening to take peoples' inheritance is electoral suicide.
As Osborne discovered in 2007 however IHT cut proposals are extremely popular
Another nonsense post to be rowed back on when it happens
And I think what polling on this we have the general population back on on this Big G.
However, where HY might be right, an important section of Tory support may be in the oppose column?
As long as it keeps them in their seats they will not complain but what @HYUFD is blinded on, is that the country have moved as a body left wanting more covid regulations and lockdowns if necessary and absolutely spending on the NHS and social care, and listening to him at the UN he is really pushing climate change for all its worth which is very much today's topic
For all his faults, Boris understands this and is moving onto that agenda and if some of his right wingers complain then he will just carry on anyway
59% of voters think inheritance tax is unfair, including 67% of Conservative voters, it is the most unpopular tax there is
It is the correct thing to do and you may find Rishi does the right thing
The thing is that you're both right.
More tax has got to come from somewhere, and wealth rather than incomes is the clear way to do it.
But it will also make the Conservative core vote very unhappy bunnies.
So BoJo can either make himself unpopular quickly (with even more tax rises) or slowly (as the fiscal wheels fall off).
Which is more likely?
I expect Rishi will make a balanced case for a wealth tax next month
Believe that when I see it.
Budget is on 27th October and one of the most important for years
Let's see
It will probably be busy on here on 27 Oct based on what we had with the NI/ health and social care tax a few weeks ago!
Arguably that was bigger than what the budget will do, bad news out early whilst budget of good news sweeteners handing back o dear bit that was stolen two weeks ago.
FPT Re Jimmy Saville. He groomed an entire nation's Establishment. Using him to have a pop at just the BBC is a bit reductive. Strangely. It was widely rumoured about amongst the younger generation. We knew not to go to his club in Manchester. Don't know anyone my age who thought him other than a total creep. But our elders and betters couldn't contain their gushing enthusiasm for the living saint amongst us. Any forensic dramatisation might expose the hypocrisy of an entire generation.
As to why whistleblowers don't speak up, even though they know ought to know or suspect, well let me ask the men amongst you this. Every woman I know has suffered sexual harassment of some kind, some of it the most serious there is. Statistically, you must know men who have raped or sexually harassed women. How often have you blown the whistle about their conduct? And, if not, why not?
That's an exceptionally stupidly put question if I may say so, which given your ability to be very clear is surprising. You've jumped straight from saying that statistically we must know someone who has raped or sexually harassed a woman to presuming we know about it happening.
At the very least allow the possibility of us being blind enough to not realise we know a rapist or sexual assaulter and criticise that, than jump immediately to an implicit accusation we've decided not to report a rapist.
As it stands your question doesn't make any point about whistleblowing, since a whistleblower knows something is up and you've apparently granted all men the power of omniscence.
If you want to make the point that men should be far more alert to the signs someone is a rapist or sexual assaulter, perhaps say that rather than presume everyone knows but does nothing.
You are right people do not like those who blow the whistle - it's why many whistleblowing policies are not worth the paper they are printed on, since the desire to punish remains. But your question to illustrate it doesn'trelate to that at all.
Well said. A woman who has been abused may share her experience.
A man who abuses others almost certainly does not share their experience.
I don't know of anyone who has done anything to "blow the whistle" on. Not a single thing. Now if Cyclefree is saying that its happened but I wasn't aware of it . . . well how could I blow the whistle if I'm not aware of it?
FPT Re Jimmy Saville. He groomed an entire nation's Establishment. Using him to have a pop at just the BBC is a bit reductive. Strangely. It was widely rumoured about amongst the younger generation. We knew not to go to his club in Manchester. Don't know anyone my age who thought him other than a total creep. But our elders and betters couldn't contain their gushing enthusiasm for the living saint amongst us. Any forensic dramatisation might expose the hypocrisy of an entire generation.
As to why whistleblowers don't speak up, even though they know ought to know or suspect, well let me ask the men amongst you this. Every woman I know has suffered sexual harassment of some kind, some of it the most serious there is. Statistically, you must know men who have raped or sexually harassed women. How often have you blown the whistle about their conduct? And, if not, why not?
That's an exceptionally stupidly put question if I may say so, which given your ability to be very clear is surprising. You've jumped straight from saying that statistically we must know someone who has raped or sexually harassed a woman to presuming we know about it happening.
At the very least allow the possibility of us being blind enough to not realise we know a rapist or sexual assaulter and criticise that, than jump immediately to an implicit accusation we've decided not to report a rapist.
As it stands your question doesn't make any point about whistleblowing, since a whistleblower knows something is up and you've apparently granted all men the power of omniscence.
If you want to make the point that men should be far more alert to the signs someone is a rapist or sexual assaulter, perhaps say that rather than presume everyone knows but does nothing.
You are right people do not like those who blow the whistle - it's why many whistleblowing policies are not worth the paper they are printed on, since the desire to punish remains. But your question to illustrate it doesn'trelate to that at all.
You're being overly sensitive imo. I think it's a fair enough question. Eg I have known men who've harassed women and have not always called it out. Bet this applies to other posters on here too. Can't be just me. So, why didn't I? Why didn't they? This is not a stupid question. It's quite an interesting and important question.
The assumption that men do not talk about what they do to women is simply not true. I have read the chats and emails and heard the calls in which men do talk about what they do. So other men do know or suspect and yet they do not speak up. In every single case I ever investigated where harassment came up, no-one spoke up. Even though when confronted they admitted to having concerns or agreeing that it was wrong.
There was even an esteemed poster on here who said a while back that he had had colleagues who talked about stuff that he disagreed with so he made his distaste known and did not join in. Good for him. But why not go further?
Too many blind eyes are turned. The Savile case showed that there were plenty of men who knew or suspected. Ditto for many other cases.
The plain fact is that there will be many men around you who do behave in a sexually harassing way to women. Those with eyes to see, really see what is going on and a bit of curiosity will notice. Refusing to notice and then taking umbrage when someone asks why you are not noticing or why when you do notice or suspect you do nothing is part of the reason why problems like this are so widespread.
It is exactly the same approach that allowed financial misbehaviour to go on for so long.
Per betfair SPD have won. Thanks to @NickPalmer for the tip when it was 1.3.
If true then Boris will indeed be the only conservative leader left in the G7 apart from Japan (if you count the LDP as conservative which is debatable given their name).
The last time there was only 1 conservative in the G7 was Chirac from 1998-2000, again an equally charismatic figure like Boris able to defy the western tide to the centre left
I am not sure if you have noticed, but Boris has moved noticeably to the left so there is only Japan left then
He is still the leader of the main Conservative Party in the UK and his cut to UC and ending of free movement from the EU for example are hardly centre left actions.
Though yes he has positioned himself generally in the relative centre ground
Time for for Rishi to ameliorate the UC cut but he is left of centre and some distance from the right of the party
He is not left of centre, he is centrist on economics, populist on culture and social issues, he is miles away from Rayner and Corbyn.
He is not a pure Thatcherite but then most Tory PMs aren't
Social issues not even etched on the yardstick. Kate Hoey went hunting, but was rightly in the Labour Party for how she voted on economic questions.
Social issues are the yardstick which makes you a conservative as well as support for inheritance, being economically Thatcherite could make you a classical liberal as much as a conservative
I hope the rumours that Rishi is looking at inheritance tax are true
If they are he can kiss goodbye to any chance of any hope of being Tory leader and PM, there would be a revolution amongst Tory MPs and grassroots and we would lose our poll lead.
As May discovered in 2017 threatening to take peoples' inheritance is electoral suicide.
As Osborne discovered in 2007 however IHT cut proposals are extremely popular
Another nonsense post to be rowed back on when it happens
A rise in inheritance tax is a red line, the Tory Party has always been the party that has supported inherited wealth no matter what.
There would be a huge revolt from members and MPs in the home counties and posh parts of London and rightly so, Boris would probably have to sack him. Hence he will not do it
Can I ask you a hypothetical question.
If it was proveable that a rise in inheritance tax resulted in better social mobility and economic growth, would you still oppose it?
Yes because it is not conservative and anti family and anti preservation of wealth within the family.
Not that it would anyway, you improve social mobility by improving education standards and choice and getting more middle class jobs available not by taking peoples houses. You get economic growth by cutting taxes across the board not raising them
People relying on inheritance or family handouts does not 'improve social mobility'. It makes it harder for those from poorer backgrounds to get on!
😠
No it doesn't, you don't improve social mobility by taking peoples' family homes you just end up with even lower home ownership.
Thatcher's council house sales was a measure that actually did improve social mobility, as did the expansion of white collar jobs in the 1950s and 1960s and as did many grammar schools
Who is talking of taking peoples homes..
Inheritance tax is taken after death and there is £325,000 threshold which for most people outside London would exempt them
You need to get real about this
It is taking the family home.
I know you are a former New Labour voter who does not care about many core Tory principles but I do.
The median house price is also £342,000 in the South East now and £495,000 in London so the average property there is above the threshold already. There are also plenty of properties in wealthier parts of the North and Midlands and Wales which would also be hit by a rise in IHT.
The owner is deceased and the estate pays IHT over £325,000 which by your own admission is not far below the SE
The residue is payable to the beneficiaries
Isn't it actually £1million for a "family home" i.e. married couple???
Indeed and there is plenty of scope to make modest changes
imho a 2nd higher rate (maybe 50% or 60%?) for the higher end of things would be worth looking at.
I must be getting old and cynical. At the risk of stating the obvious, we are running out of money. Governments want to do the least unpopular thing out of putting up taxes (popular with the poorer members of society as they don't pay those taxes) or cutting spending (popular with the richer members of society as they don't feel they receive benefit from the spending). This is just moving the deckchairs about.
Governments should seek to maximise the wealth production capacity of our country, setting taxes at the optimum level to maximise tax revenue in the medium-to-long term. The OBR should comment on the effectiveness of changes to the tax system, reporting whether they achieved their goal in raising revenue or increasing taxable activity. Anything that fails should be investigated and either reformed or repealed if it cannot be shown to be beneficial after 5 years.
Per betfair SPD have won. Thanks to @NickPalmer for the tip when it was 1.3.
If true then Boris will indeed be the only conservative leader left in the G7 apart from Japan (if you count the LDP as conservative which is debatable given their name).
The last time there was only 1 conservative in the G7 was Chirac from 1998-2000, again an equally charismatic figure like Boris able to defy the western tide to the centre left
I am not sure if you have noticed, but Boris has moved noticeably to the left so there is only Japan left then
He is still the leader of the main Conservative Party in the UK and his cut to UC and ending of free movement from the EU for example are hardly centre left actions.
Though yes he has positioned himself generally in the relative centre ground
Time for for Rishi to ameliorate the UC cut but he is left of centre and some distance from the right of the party
He is not left of centre, he is centrist on economics, populist on culture and social issues, he is miles away from Rayner and Corbyn.
He is not a pure Thatcherite but then most Tory PMs aren't
Social issues not even etched on the yardstick. Kate Hoey went hunting, but was rightly in the Labour Party for how she voted on economic questions.
Social issues are the yardstick which makes you a conservative as well as support for inheritance, being economically Thatcherite could make you a classical liberal as much as a conservative
I hope the rumours that Rishi is looking at inheritance tax are true
If they are he can kiss goodbye to any chance of any hope of being Tory leader and PM, there would be a revolution amongst Tory MPs and grassroots and we would lose our poll lead.
As May discovered in 2017 threatening to take peoples' inheritance is electoral suicide.
As Osborne discovered in 2007 however IHT cut proposals are extremely popular
Another nonsense post to be rowed back on when it happens
A rise in inheritance tax is a red line, the Tory Party has always been the party that has supported inherited wealth no matter what.
There would be a huge revolt from members and MPs in the home counties and posh parts of London and rightly so, Boris would probably have to sack him. Hence he will not do it
Can I ask you a hypothetical question.
If it was proveable that a rise in inheritance tax resulted in better social mobility and economic growth, would you still oppose it?
Yes because it is not conservative and anti family and anti preservation of wealth within the family.
Not that it would anyway, you improve social mobility by improving education standards and choice and getting more middle class jobs available not by taking peoples houses. You get economic growth by cutting taxes across the board not raising them
People relying on inheritance or family handouts does not 'improve social mobility'. It makes it harder for those from poorer backgrounds to get on!
😠
No it doesn't, you don't improve social mobility by taking peoples' family homes you just end up with even lower home ownership.
Thatcher's council house sales was a measure that actually did improve social mobility, as did the expansion of white collar jobs in the 1950s and 1960s and as did many grammar schools
Who is talking of taking peoples homes..
Inheritance tax is taken after death and there is £325,000 threshold which for most people outside London would exempt them
You need to get real about this
It is taking the family home.
I know you are a former New Labour voter who does not care about many core Tory principles but I do.
The median house price is also £342,000 in the South East now and £495,000 in London so the average property there is above the threshold already. There are also plenty of properties in wealthier parts of the North and Midlands and Wales which would also be hit by a rise in IHT.
The owner is deceased and the estate pays IHT over £325,000 which by your own admission is not far below the SE
The residue is payable to the beneficiaries
Isn't it actually £1million for a "family home" i.e. married couple???
Indeed and there is plenty of scope to make modest changes
imho a 2nd higher rate (maybe 50% or 60%?) for the higher end of things would be worth looking at.
I must be getting old and cynical. At the risk of stating the obvious, we are running out of money. Governments want to do the least unpopular thing out of putting up taxes (popular with the poorer members of society as they don't pay those taxes) or cutting spending (popular with the richer members of society as they don't feel they receive benefit from the spending). This is just moving the deckchairs about.
Governments should seek to maximise the wealth production capacity of our country, setting taxes at the optimum level to maximise tax revenue in the medium-to-long term. The OBR should comment on the effectiveness of changes to the tax system, reporting whether they achieved their goal in raising revenue or increasing taxable activity. Anything that fails should be investigated and either reformed or repealed if it cannot be shown to be beneficial after 5 years.
Per betfair SPD have won. Thanks to @NickPalmer for the tip when it was 1.3.
If true then Boris will indeed be the only conservative leader left in the G7 apart from Japan (if you count the LDP as conservative which is debatable given their name).
The last time there was only 1 conservative in the G7 was Chirac from 1998-2000, again an equally charismatic figure like Boris able to defy the western tide to the centre left
I am not sure if you have noticed, but Boris has moved noticeably to the left so there is only Japan left then
He is still the leader of the main Conservative Party in the UK and his cut to UC and ending of free movement from the EU for example are hardly centre left actions.
Though yes he has positioned himself generally in the relative centre ground
Time for for Rishi to ameliorate the UC cut but he is left of centre and some distance from the right of the party
He is not left of centre, he is centrist on economics, populist on culture and social issues, he is miles away from Rayner and Corbyn.
He is not a pure Thatcherite but then most Tory PMs aren't
Social issues not even etched on the yardstick. Kate Hoey went hunting, but was rightly in the Labour Party for how she voted on economic questions.
Social issues are the yardstick which makes you a conservative as well as support for inheritance, being economically Thatcherite could make you a classical liberal as much as a conservative
I hope the rumours that Rishi is looking at inheritance tax are true
If they are he can kiss goodbye to any chance of any hope of being Tory leader and PM, there would be a revolution amongst Tory MPs and grassroots and we would lose our poll lead.
As May discovered in 2017 threatening to take peoples' inheritance is electoral suicide.
As Osborne discovered in 2007 however IHT cut proposals are extremely popular
Another nonsense post to be rowed back on when it happens
And I think what polling on this we have the general population back on on this Big G.
However, where HY might be right, an important section of Tory support may be in the oppose column?
As long as it keeps them in their seats they will not complain but what @HYUFD is blinded on, is that the country have moved as a body left wanting more covid regulations and lockdowns if necessary and absolutely spending on the NHS and social care, and listening to him at the UN he is really pushing climate change for all its worth which is very much today's topic
For all his faults, Boris understands this and is moving onto that agenda and if some of his right wingers complain then he will just carry on anyway
59% of voters think inheritance tax is unfair, including 67% of Conservative voters, it is the most unpopular tax there is
It is the correct thing to do and you may find Rishi does the right thing
The thing is that you're both right.
More tax has got to come from somewhere, and wealth rather than incomes is the clear way to do it.
But it will also make the Conservative core vote very unhappy bunnies.
So BoJo can either make himself unpopular quickly (with even more tax rises) or slowly (as the fiscal wheels fall off).
Which is more likely?
I expect Rishi will make a balanced case for a wealth tax next month
Believe that when I see it.
Que picture of Rishi bring out the dinner, you know the one, only some wag photoshopped furlough in place of the food. They maybe so desperate for income they will go everywhere to steal some. Can’t rule anything out.
My "like" of this post is due to my admittedly sick appreciation of the pic. Personally do NOT think that R, H, D, M or P belong on a scaffold! Though of course other PBers may beg to differ?
Per betfair SPD have won. Thanks to @NickPalmer for the tip when it was 1.3.
If true then Boris will indeed be the only conservative leader left in the G7 apart from Japan (if you count the LDP as conservative which is debatable given their name).
The last time there was only 1 conservative in the G7 was Chirac from 1998-2000, again an equally charismatic figure like Boris able to defy the western tide to the centre left
I am not sure if you have noticed, but Boris has moved noticeably to the left so there is only Japan left then
He is still the leader of the main Conservative Party in the UK and his cut to UC and ending of free movement from the EU for example are hardly centre left actions.
Though yes he has positioned himself generally in the relative centre ground
Time for for Rishi to ameliorate the UC cut but he is left of centre and some distance from the right of the party
He is not left of centre, he is centrist on economics, populist on culture and social issues, he is miles away from Rayner and Corbyn.
He is not a pure Thatcherite but then most Tory PMs aren't
Social issues not even etched on the yardstick. Kate Hoey went hunting, but was rightly in the Labour Party for how she voted on economic questions.
Social issues are the yardstick which makes you a conservative as well as support for inheritance, being economically Thatcherite could make you a classical liberal as much as a conservative
I hope the rumours that Rishi is looking at inheritance tax are true
If they are he can kiss goodbye to any chance of any hope of being Tory leader and PM, there would be a revolution amongst Tory MPs and grassroots and we would lose our poll lead.
As May discovered in 2017 threatening to take peoples' inheritance is electoral suicide.
As Osborne discovered in 2007 however IHT cut proposals are extremely popular
Another nonsense post to be rowed back on when it happens
A rise in inheritance tax is a red line, the Tory Party has always been the party that has supported inherited wealth no matter what.
There would be a huge revolt from members and MPs in the home counties and posh parts of London and rightly so, Boris would probably have to sack him. Hence he will not do it
Can I ask you a hypothetical question.
If it was proveable that a rise in inheritance tax resulted in better social mobility and economic growth, would you still oppose it?
Yes because it is not conservative and anti family and anti preservation of wealth within the family.
Not that it would anyway, you improve social mobility by improving education standards and choice and getting more middle class jobs available not by taking peoples houses. You get economic growth by cutting taxes across the board not raising them
People relying on inheritance or family handouts does not 'improve social mobility'. It makes it harder for those from poorer backgrounds to get on!
😠
No it doesn't, you don't improve social mobility by taking peoples' family homes you just end up with even lower home ownership.
Thatcher's council house sales was a measure that actually did improve social mobility, as did the expansion of white collar jobs in the 1950s and 1960s and as did many grammar schools
We are not talking about 'taking people's homes'. Those fortunate enough to have these inheritances which they have got worked for ie unearned wealth need to pay a fair share in tax.
Also applies to those getting large capital transfers from mummy and daddy eg to buy properties etc.
We need to sort out the state of the nation's finances and proper tax on unearned wealth needs to be a key part of that.
You are talking about most under 65s in London and the SE here, south of Watford the average paid worker can only buy a property or get a deposit to buy a property with parental assistance or inheritance now.
Remove that and the Tories would face a 1997 style wipeout as their heartland vote collapsed.
Estates over £1 million still pay IHT anyway
Gosh, I really hope both you and Big G are right:
Big G - Rishi will definitely raise IHT HYUFD - if he does, Tories will face a 1997 style wipeout.
Drinks all round!
If the Tories raise IHT even I would have to think about staying home at the next general election, it would be such a betrayal of Tory principles and large numbers of Tories round here would feel the same and stay home or vote ReformUK in protest.
Hence Boris would not do it
I really do not think you staying at home will be on either Boris or Rishi mind to be honest
The prospect of millions of Tory voters in London and the South like me doing the same however or going LD or RefUK might, it would collapse the Blue Wall as badly as the Red Wall went in 2019
The family threshold is 1 million IHT free and you are objecting to IHT change is just pure greed
Yes but if he lowered the threshold below 1 million then the Tories would have real problems, reversing the Osborne IHT cut would be electoral suicide
Not really. Politics has moved on a lot in the past decade.
The median house in the red wall is about £150k. There's no need for a £1m threshold there - not that there's any reason why there should be a threshold at all.
I wonder how it'd work if there were to be rules similar to CGT - all inheritances are taxed in full as income, but the primary home that was lived in is exempt. Nothing else exempt.
Would stop having to try to align thresholds with houses.
Your suggestion is great for the SE and London, less so for the red wall
I did think about that. But still I don't think many people up here think about an inheritance over a million - or even anything like that - and think more tax on that would be unreasonable.
Either way though I don't see any reason why unearned income should be lighter taxed than earned income. Raise IHT, merge NI and Income Tax, and lower the overall rate for workers - and let people keep their rewards of actually working for a living.
Disagree, no rise in IHT, keep NI and Income Tax separate and use NI to fund health and social care, the state pension and JSA as originally intended
Per betfair SPD have won. Thanks to @NickPalmer for the tip when it was 1.3.
If true then Boris will indeed be the only conservative leader left in the G7 apart from Japan (if you count the LDP as conservative which is debatable given their name).
The last time there was only 1 conservative in the G7 was Chirac from 1998-2000, again an equally charismatic figure like Boris able to defy the western tide to the centre left
I am not sure if you have noticed, but Boris has moved noticeably to the left so there is only Japan left then
He is still the leader of the main Conservative Party in the UK and his cut to UC and ending of free movement from the EU for example are hardly centre left actions.
Though yes he has positioned himself generally in the relative centre ground
Time for for Rishi to ameliorate the UC cut but he is left of centre and some distance from the right of the party
He is not left of centre, he is centrist on economics, populist on culture and social issues, he is miles away from Rayner and Corbyn.
He is not a pure Thatcherite but then most Tory PMs aren't
Social issues not even etched on the yardstick. Kate Hoey went hunting, but was rightly in the Labour Party for how she voted on economic questions.
Social issues are the yardstick which makes you a conservative as well as support for inheritance, being economically Thatcherite could make you a classical liberal as much as a conservative
I hope the rumours that Rishi is looking at inheritance tax are true
If they are he can kiss goodbye to any chance of any hope of being Tory leader and PM, there would be a revolution amongst Tory MPs and grassroots and we would lose our poll lead.
As May discovered in 2017 threatening to take peoples' inheritance is electoral suicide.
As Osborne discovered in 2007 however IHT cut proposals are extremely popular
Another nonsense post to be rowed back on when it happens
A rise in inheritance tax is a red line, the Tory Party has always been the party that has supported inherited wealth no matter what.
There would be a huge revolt from members and MPs in the home counties and posh parts of London and rightly so, Boris would probably have to sack him. Hence he will not do it
Can I ask you a hypothetical question.
If it was proveable that a rise in inheritance tax resulted in better social mobility and economic growth, would you still oppose it?
Yes because it is not conservative and anti family and anti preservation of wealth within the family.
Not that it would anyway, you improve social mobility by improving education standards and choice and getting more middle class jobs available not by taking peoples houses. You get economic growth by cutting taxes across the board not raising them
People relying on inheritance or family handouts does not 'improve social mobility'. It makes it harder for those from poorer backgrounds to get on!
😠
No it doesn't, you don't improve social mobility by taking peoples' family homes you just end up with even lower home ownership.
Thatcher's council house sales was a measure that actually did improve social mobility, as did the expansion of white collar jobs in the 1950s and 1960s and as did many grammar schools
Who is talking of taking peoples homes..
Inheritance tax is taken after death and there is £325,000 threshold which for most people outside London would exempt them
You need to get real about this
It is taking the family home.
I know you are a former New Labour voter who does not care about many core Tory principles but I do.
The median house price is also £342,000 in the South East now and £495,000 in London so the average property there is above the threshold already. There are also plenty of properties in wealthier parts of the North and Midlands and Wales which would also be hit by a rise in IHT.
The owner is deceased and the estate pays IHT over £325,000 which by your own admission is not far below the SE
The residue is payable to the beneficiaries
Isn't it actually £1million for a "family home" i.e. married couple???
Indeed and there is plenty of scope to make modest changes
imho a 2nd higher rate (maybe 50% or 60%?) for the higher end of things would be worth looking at.
I must be getting old and cynical. At the risk of stating the obvious, we are running out of money. Governments want to do the least unpopular thing out of putting up taxes (popular with the poorer members of society as they don't pay those taxes) or cutting spending (popular with the richer members of society as they don't feel they receive benefit from the spending). This is just moving the deckchairs about.
Governments should seek to maximise the wealth production capacity of our country, setting taxes at the optimum level to maximise tax revenue in the medium-to-long term. The OBR should comment on the effectiveness of changes to the tax system, reporting whether they achieved their goal in raising revenue or increasing taxable activity. Anything that fails should be investigated and either reformed or repealed if it cannot be shown to be beneficial after 5 years.
And if the voters disagree?
And that is why eventually things will fall apart. Every civilisation in history has thrived when it has more soldiers and merchants than priests and kings (ie. create wealth > consume it). Unfortunately we are on the other side at the moment.
My "like" of this post is due to my admittedly sick appreciation of the pic. Personally do NOT think that R, H, D, M or P belong on a scaffold! Though of course other PBers may beg to differ?
Och, I don't think any of them should be well hung, only that such a shoogly coalition would demand a cleansing.
So far zero constituencies declared in Berlin, ditto in Schlewig-Holstein.
Only 44 to go. Am I correct in thinking the Union has won most constituency seats? And that the AfD has a fair few? And that the FDP don't have any at all?
So far zero constituencies declared in Berlin, ditto in Schlewig-Holstein.
Only 44 to go. Am I correct in thinking the Union has won most constituency seats? And that the AfD has a fair few? And that the FDP don't have any at all?
Yes. At the moment I think the Union has most seats but that could change when all the results are in.
So far zero constituencies declared in Berlin, ditto in Schlewig-Holstein.
Only 44 to go. Am I correct in thinking the Union has won most constituency seats? And that the AfD has a fair few? And that the FDP don't have any at all?
Yes, looks like it.
On first constituency votes the CDU/CSU are currently on 29.4% with the SPD only on 26.3% with 258/299 constituencies declared.
Only on the second list vote is the SPD ahead with 25.7% to 24.7% for the CDU/CSU
FPT Re Jimmy Saville. He groomed an entire nation's Establishment. Using him to have a pop at just the BBC is a bit reductive. Strangely. It was widely rumoured about amongst the younger generation. We knew not to go to his club in Manchester. Don't know anyone my age who thought him other than a total creep. But our elders and betters couldn't contain their gushing enthusiasm for the living saint amongst us. Any forensic dramatisation might expose the hypocrisy of an entire generation.
As to why whistleblowers don't speak up, even though they know ought to know or suspect, well let me ask the men amongst you this. Every woman I know has suffered sexual harassment of some kind, some of it the most serious there is. Statistically, you must know men who have raped or sexually harassed women. How often have you blown the whistle about their conduct? And, if not, why not?
That's an exceptionally stupidly put question if I may say so, which given your ability to be very clear is surprising. You've jumped straight from saying that statistically we must know someone who has raped or sexually harassed a woman to presuming we know about it happening.
At the very least allow the possibility of us being blind enough to not realise we know a rapist or sexual assaulter and criticise that, than jump immediately to an implicit accusation we've decided not to report a rapist.
As it stands your question doesn't make any point about whistleblowing, since a whistleblower knows something is up and you've apparently granted all men the power of omniscence.
If you want to make the point that men should be far more alert to the signs someone is a rapist or sexual assaulter, perhaps say that rather than presume everyone knows but does nothing.
You are right people do not like those who blow the whistle - it's why many whistleblowing policies are not worth the paper they are printed on, since the desire to punish remains. But your question to illustrate it doesn'trelate to that at all.
Well said. A woman who has been abused may share her experience.
A man who abuses others almost certainly does not share their experience.
I don't know of anyone who has done anything to "blow the whistle" on. Not a single thing. Now if Cyclefree is saying that its happened but I wasn't aware of it . . . well how could I blow the whistle if I'm not aware of it?
FPT Re Jimmy Saville. He groomed an entire nation's Establishment. Using him to have a pop at just the BBC is a bit reductive. Strangely. It was widely rumoured about amongst the younger generation. We knew not to go to his club in Manchester. Don't know anyone my age who thought him other than a total creep. But our elders and betters couldn't contain their gushing enthusiasm for the living saint amongst us. Any forensic dramatisation might expose the hypocrisy of an entire generation.
As to why whistleblowers don't speak up, even though they know ought to know or suspect, well let me ask the men amongst you this. Every woman I know has suffered sexual harassment of some kind, some of it the most serious there is. Statistically, you must know men who have raped or sexually harassed women. How often have you blown the whistle about their conduct? And, if not, why not?
That's an exceptionally stupidly put question if I may say so, which given your ability to be very clear is surprising. You've jumped straight from saying that statistically we must know someone who has raped or sexually harassed a woman to presuming we know about it happening.
At the very least allow the possibility of us being blind enough to not realise we know a rapist or sexual assaulter and criticise that, than jump immediately to an implicit accusation we've decided not to report a rapist.
As it stands your question doesn't make any point about whistleblowing, since a whistleblower knows something is up and you've apparently granted all men the power of omniscence.
If you want to make the point that men should be far more alert to the signs someone is a rapist or sexual assaulter, perhaps say that rather than presume everyone knows but does nothing.
You are right people do not like those who blow the whistle - it's why many whistleblowing policies are not worth the paper they are printed on, since the desire to punish remains. But your question to illustrate it doesn'trelate to that at all.
You're being overly sensitive imo. I think it's a fair enough question. Eg I have known men who've harassed women and have not always called it out. Bet this applies to other posters on here too. Can't be just me. So, why didn't I? Why didn't they? This is not a stupid question. It's quite an interesting and important question.
The assumption that men do not talk about what they do to women is simply not true. I have read the chats and emails and heard the calls in which men do talk about what they do. So other men do know or suspect and yet they do not speak up. In every single case I ever investigated where harassment came up, no-one spoke up. Even though when confronted they admitted to having concerns or agreeing that it was wrong.
There was even an esteemed poster on here who said a while back that he had had colleagues who talked about stuff that he disagreed with so he made his distaste known and did not join in. Good for him. But why not go further?
Too many blind eyes are turned. The Savile case showed that there were plenty of men who knew or suspected. Ditto for many other cases.
The plain fact is that there will be many men around you who do behave in a sexually harassing way to women. Those with eyes to see, really see what is going on and a bit of curiosity will notice. Refusing to notice and then taking umbrage when someone asks why you are not noticing or why when you do notice or suspect you do nothing is part of the reason why problems like this are so widespread.
It is exactly the same approach that allowed financial misbehaviour to go on for so long.
I'm sorry but that's a completely fallacious misreading of statistics.
Yes you've investigated harrassment, and yes you've traced people who knew. So those people knew.
But that doesn't mean that everyone else does. What you said was "Statistically, you must know men who have raped or sexually harassed women." Not statistically you might, but statistically you must.
I do not know any such man, and if I do he never informed me. Just because the people you investigated revealed things to some confidantes does not mean that the people who never came up in your investigations because they were entirely unconnected would have also known.
Basing a response to all men on the investigations done into dodgy ones will cloud your judgement to say that all men are dodgy or know something when there's no reason for that to be true. That's like saying all Muslims are terrorists or know terrorists, because you investigated those who were terrorists, traced their confidantes and they knew what was happening.
I fully and 100% support you in wanting better for women. I have two young girls myself and I worry more for their own future than I do my own. I would do anything to make the world they grow into a better place for them. But please don't let the misdeeds of a few cloud your judgements of everyone else.
So far zero constituencies declared in Berlin, ditto in Schlewig-Holstein.
Only 44 to go. Am I correct in thinking the Union has won most constituency seats? And that the AfD has a fair few? And that the FDP don't have any at all?
Yes, looks like it.
On first constituency votes the CDU/CSU are currently on 29.4% with the SPD only on 26.3% with 258/299 constituencies declared.
Only on the second list vote is the SPD ahead with 25.7% to 24.7% for the CDU/CSU
So looks like in Germany on the FPTP constituency vote the conservative Union will have won most votes just as in Canada the Conservatives also won most votes but it will be the SPD, just like the Liberals, who end up winning most seats overall.
Though in Germany it will likely be only the list seats which put the SPD ahead, I think the CDU/CSU are far ahead enough on constituencies ie currently 132 to 95 for the SPD to win most constituencies overall
@HYUFD Been reliably informed by fellow Wikipedians that there is no reliable source that the US Democrats are affiliated with the Progressive Alliance.
If the CDU had chosen a less voter-repellent leader, they'd have walked this, wouldn't they?
Indeed, if Scholz does become chancellor, Soder is nailed on for Union chancellor candidate in 2025 given Laschet's defeat
4 years is a long time to find another leader. The CSU is not liked by much of Germany.
The last 2 times the CDU chancellor candidate lost an election, 1976 and 1998, the Union candidate at the next election was from the CSU. Strauss in 1980 and Stoiber in 2002.
Given this will be Laschet and the CDU's defeat the CSU will likely refuse to back any candidate but Soder next time
Stoiber was the candidate in 2002 because of sexism in the CDU as well as a pragmatic decision by Merkel that Schröder would win so it was better to let another male rival carry the can.
Stoiber was just 3 seats behind Schroder in that election and tied on votes
Well Stoiber only got 4,3 million votes, but Schröder got 18,5 million votes.
The Union which Stoiber led got 18.482 million votes, Schroder got 18.488 million votes
Stoiber didn't do that badly in retrospect (considering the lead that Merkel almost blew completely in 2005) and got a decent swing throughout the whole of West Germany but it was CDU weakness in East Germany which narrowly cost the CDU overall in that election. I think it would have been better for the CDU/CSU (and possibly the SPD as well) in the long term if the CDU/CSU had won in 2002.
It will be hard for the CDU/CSU to recover I think if Scholz successfully puts together an SPD-Green-FDP coalition and conquers the centre ground as there will be vicious debates in the CDU/CSU in the short term about whether to remain the centre or tack right to win back votes from Freie Wähler,AfD etc even if Söder ends up running in 2025.
The SPD also now has credible potential successors such as Manuela Schwesig and Malu Dreyer once Scholz decides to stand down.
Though I've mocked the German names ('Did you know that 1 out of every 4 men suffers from Reutlingen?") must say that I love them. Scanning the election results is like a travelling through song, story and history, cruising down the Rhine (or Danube or Elbe or Spee) with stein und wurst well in hand.
Have I missed something on the rule change that Starmer has won that have shattered the Left?
20% threshold of MPs nominations.
Labour only have 199 MPs - so a Corbyn type would need basically exactly the same number of signatures as he did in 2015 ≈ 36 vs 39
All else being equal, getting 36 nominees from 232 is considerably easier than 39 nominees from 199. Some of the lost seats would include those who would have been on that side (eg Pidcock).
Worth remembering in 2015 that Corbyn only got to the 36 because Margaret Beckett chose to sign the nomination paper "to widen the debate" and came to deeply regret it. The same mistake should not happen again next time, but people do tend to forget to learn from history.
Minor point but wouldn't it require 40 MPs to achieve a 20% threshold of 199?
Edit: And isn't 35 sufficient to achieve 15% of 232?. Thus it's 35 versus 40.
It depends if you round up or down. If the rule is "rounding down" then 20% of 199 is 39.
There's no basis for that. 20% of 199 is 39.8, no more, no less. 39 MPs is not enough, 40 is. Simples.
Jokes aside, you cannot have part of a real MP to round up, or down.
Indeed but the rules might say "20% rounded down".
Its not unusual for rules to explicitly say whether rounding should be up or down.
No - the rules do not say rounded down.
The rule is 20% (or more) which means 40 out of 199. 39 is less than 20%.
It's the same in the other parties - eg for challenging a Con leader. There is no rounding down there either.
Have I missed something on the rule change that Starmer has won that have shattered the Left?
20% threshold of MPs nominations.
Labour only have 199 MPs - so a Corbyn type would need basically exactly the same number of signatures as he did in 2015 ≈ 36 vs 39
All else being equal, getting 36 nominees from 232 is considerably easier than 39 nominees from 199. Some of the lost seats would include those who would have been on that side (eg Pidcock).
Worth remembering in 2015 that Corbyn only got to the 36 because Margaret Beckett chose to sign the nomination paper "to widen the debate" and came to deeply regret it. The same mistake should not happen again next time, but people do tend to forget to learn from history.
Minor point but wouldn't it require 40 MPs to achieve a 20% threshold of 199?
Edit: And isn't 35 sufficient to achieve 15% of 232?. Thus it's 35 versus 40.
It depends if you round up or down. If the rule is "rounding down" then 20% of 199 is 39.
There's no basis for that. 20% of 199 is 39.8, no more, no less. 39 MPs is not enough, 40 is. Simples.
Jokes aside, you cannot have part of a real MP to round up, or down.
Indeed but the rules might say "20% rounded down".
Its not unusual for rules to explicitly say whether rounding should be up or down.
No - the rules do not say rounded down.
The rule is 20% (or more) which means 40 out of 199. 39 is less than 20%.
It's the same in the other parties - eg for challenging a Con leader. There is no rounding down there either.
I didn't know the rule wording, hence the word *might*. The rules could say rounding down, its far from unheard of for rules to specify how rounding operates.
I can't see the Union catching up now with just 33 seats to declare.
Nor Die Linke making 5%? Or can they, with their vote in Berlin? Dunno.
I've got a bet with a fellow PBer from three years ago on the combined Die Linke/AFD vote share. I bet that it will be below 35% combined.
Am I right in reading it that as it stands the combined vote share is 15.4% as it stands?
15.3 I make it. Will go higher because of Berlin, but, whoever it was won't get even half way.Pity it wasn't a spread bet. This is a good thing. Also. The 2 parties with the oldest voters have been in coalition. Looks like it will be one of them plus the 2 with the youngest voters. Germany has broken its gerontocracy. This, too, is a good thing.
It looks like a Red Green Red coalition won't have a majority. Maybe more important than it seems at first, because if they did have a majority and the SPD and Greens were trying to persuade the FDP to go into government with them, the SPD and Greens could effectively say to the FDP "If you don't go into coalition with us we'll go into coalition with Die Linke instead and we know you don't want to see them in power". Without the numbers for a RGR coalition they can't use that bargaining chip with the FDP which perhaps makes it easier for the FDP to consider its options.
It looks like a Red Green Red coalition won't have a majority. Maybe more important than it seems at first, because if they did have a majority and the SPD and Greens were trying to persuade the FDP to go into government with them, the SPD and Greens could effectively say to the FDP "If you don't go into coalition with us we'll go into coalition with Die Linke instead and we know you don't want to see them in power". Without the numbers for a RGR coalition they can't use that bargaining chip with the FDP which perhaps makes it easier for the FDP to consider its options.
Strikes me that both SPD (certainly Scholz) and Greens WANT the FDP with them in the government. Why? For political cover & as potential scapegoat.
AND that the FDP wants to be in the government too. Because that's what their voters want and expect. Plus they are the BDR's quintessential Party of Government.
So from the look of it either of Traffic Light (SDP, Green, FDP) or Jamaica (CDU/CSU, Green, FDP) could be viable?
Or, indeed, a continuation of the Union/SPD. Though that looks unlikely. Not as messy as it could have been. Those two 3 party coalitions were always going to viable.At least there is a clear first place. Looks like by more than a percent.
So from the look of it either of Traffic Light (SDP, Green, FDP) or Jamaica (CDU/CSU, Green, FDP) could be viable?
Or, indeed, a continuation of the Union/SPD. Though that looks unlikely.
This is part of the reason I really dislike Proportional Representation. The voters have voted and we've not got a clue what they said - and now it comes down to political haggling and not voting to determine the results.
I think that Jamaica is the likeliest, however from a long term perspective, the CDU would do well sitting on the sidelines and sniping as Merkel nostalgia grows and Germany face their issues i the coming years.
So from the look of it either of Traffic Light (SDP, Green, FDP) or Jamaica (CDU/CSU, Green, FDP) could be viable?
Or, indeed, a continuation of the Union/SPD. Though that looks unlikely.
This is part of the reason I really dislike Proportional Representation. The voters have voted and we've not got a clue what they said - and now it comes down to political haggling and not voting to determine the results.
In fairness. There isn't going to be FPTP majority either. And the FDP would score zero. In fact your options would be Union/AfD. Union/Green, or Union/SPD with 80%+ of the seats. None very likely. A worse bunch of options.
How much has the CDU won. Checking Munich it is entirely CSU, as is most of Bavaria I think.. Ex Bavaria the CDU must be err.. patchy
Greens won 1 in Munich. Think CSU swept the rest of Bayern. Union has 140 thus far. So fewer than 100. Done really poorly in the East. Merkel effect? Vote almost halved in her Land of Mecklenberg Vorpommern.
Greens retain Berlin seat, and take the capital of Charlemagne- talk about prestige!
Die Linke vote fell substantially in that Berlin one. They aren't going to make 5%. Will they win 2 more constituencies? Late results good for Greens. And SPD pulling away now. 1.5% in front.
CDU made a GAIN from Linke in Berlin. They are going under. May finish with just one seat. Quite a curious one this. First vote went CDU, Linke, AfD, SPD. Second votes went SPD, AfD, CDU, Linke. Much tactical voting.
Greens retain Berlin Treptow – Köpenick so now they have 2 constituency seats
Die Linke you mean. Only third on the second vote though. They are the night's really big losers.
Their winner in Berlin Treptow – Köpenick is incumbent Gregor Gysi, who would I think be a positive addition, personally speaking, to any German government.
Die Linke retains Berlin - Lichtenberg so they've got 3 have at least that, plus over that hurdle IF they make 5% but as dixie says that's mighty shaky, now up to just 4.8% nationally
Comments
SPD 9,325,446 (25.8%)
Union 8,994,590 (24.8%)
https://www.bundeswahlleiter.de/en/bundestagswahlen/2021/ergebnisse/bund-99.html
Jokes aside, you cannot have part of a real MP to round up, or down.
The median house in the red wall is about £150k. There's no need for a £1m threshold there - not that there's any reason why there should be a threshold at all.
I wonder how it'd work if there were to be rules similar to CGT - all inheritances are taxed in full as income, but the primary home that was lived in is exempt. Nothing else exempt.
Would stop having to try to align thresholds with houses.
Its not unusual for rules to explicitly say whether rounding should be up or down.
Let's see
The Tories can only win a majority by holding their southern BlueWall seats and adding their 2019 RedWall gains. Lose seats in the Home Counties like Chesham and beyond to the LDs and lose marginal seats in London to Starmer Labour and the Tory majority is gone even if they hold all their RedWall seats.
They might get away with a primary home exemption, although there would be some losses still from the Tory vore vote, they would not if it is included in an IHT rise
Either way though I don't see any reason why unearned income should be lighter taxed than earned income. Raise IHT, merge NI and Income Tax, and lower the overall rate for workers - and let people keep their rewards of actually working for a living.
What did 13 years of landslide Labour government actually nationalise? And privatising went on, even hospitals.
New Labour was continuity Thatcherism.
https://www.bundeswahlleiter.de/en/bundestagswahlen/2021/ergebnisse/bund-99/land-14/wahlkreis-153.html
https://archive.is/2021.09.26-094820/https://wingsoverscotland.com/under-her-thumb/
The assumption that men do not talk about what they do to women is simply not true. I have read the chats and emails and heard the calls in which men do talk about what they do. So other men do know or suspect and yet they do not speak up. In every single case I ever investigated where harassment came up, no-one spoke up. Even though when confronted they admitted to having concerns or agreeing that it was wrong.
There was even an esteemed poster on here who said a while back that he had had colleagues who talked about stuff that he disagreed with so he made his distaste known and did not join in. Good for him. But why not go further?
Too many blind eyes are turned. The Savile case showed that there were plenty of men who knew or suspected. Ditto for many other cases.
The plain fact is that there will be many men around you who do behave in a sexually harassing way to women. Those with eyes to see, really see what is going on and a bit of curiosity will notice. Refusing to notice and then taking umbrage when someone asks why you are not noticing or why when you do notice or suspect you do nothing is part of the reason why problems like this are so widespread.
It is exactly the same approach that allowed financial misbehaviour to go on for so long.
Governments should seek to maximise the wealth production capacity of our country, setting taxes at the optimum level to maximise tax revenue in the medium-to-long term. The OBR should comment on the effectiveness of changes to the tax system, reporting whether they achieved their goal in raising revenue or increasing taxable activity. Anything that fails should be investigated and either reformed or repealed if it cannot be shown to be beneficial after 5 years.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-58701788
"I'm sorry, but I can't come to work today, because I'm sick in bed with the Ulm."
https://www.bundeswahlleiter.de/en/bundestagswahlen/2021/ergebnisse/bund-99.html
https://www.election.de/cgi-bin/showres_btw21.pl
On first constituency votes the CDU/CSU are currently on 29.4% with the SPD only on 26.3% with 258/299 constituencies declared.
Only on the second list vote is the SPD ahead with 25.7% to 24.7% for the CDU/CSU
Onne hell of a constituency.
SPD: 20.1%
AfD: 19.4%
CDU: 18.5%
Linke: 16.9%
Green: 9.6%
FDP: 7.0%
Other: 8.4%
Yes you've investigated harrassment, and yes you've traced people who knew. So those people knew.
But that doesn't mean that everyone else does. What you said was "Statistically, you must know men who have raped or sexually harassed women." Not statistically you might, but statistically you must.
I do not know any such man, and if I do he never informed me. Just because the people you investigated revealed things to some confidantes does not mean that the people who never came up in your investigations because they were entirely unconnected would have also known.
Basing a response to all men on the investigations done into dodgy ones will cloud your judgement to say that all men are dodgy or know something when there's no reason for that to be true. That's like saying all Muslims are terrorists or know terrorists, because you investigated those who were terrorists, traced their confidantes and they knew what was happening.
I fully and 100% support you in wanting better for women. I have two young girls myself and I worry more for their own future than I do my own. I would do anything to make the world they grow into a better place for them. But please don't let the misdeeds of a few cloud your judgements of everyone else.
Though in Germany it will likely be only the list seats which put the SPD ahead, I think the CDU/CSU are far ahead enough on constituencies ie currently 132 to 95 for the SPD to win most constituencies overall
Heidelberg has gone Green. From third to first on both votes.
Been reliably informed by fellow Wikipedians that there is no reliable source that the US Democrats are affiliated with the Progressive Alliance.
https://www.election.de/cgi-bin/showcandres_btw21.pl?wahlkreis=160
It will be hard for the CDU/CSU to recover I think if Scholz successfully puts together an SPD-Green-FDP coalition and conquers the centre ground as there will be vicious debates in the CDU/CSU in the short term about whether to remain the centre or tack right to win back votes from Freie Wähler,AfD etc even if Söder ends up running in 2025.
The SPD also now has credible potential successors such as Manuela Schwesig and Malu Dreyer once Scholz decides to stand down.
Or can they, with their vote in Berlin? Dunno.
The rule is 20% (or more) which means 40 out of 199. 39 is less than 20%.
It's the same in the other parties - eg for challenging a Con leader. There is no rounding down there either.
Am I right in reading it that as it stands the combined vote share is 15.4% as it stands?
This is a good thing.
Also. The 2 parties with the oldest voters have been in coalition. Looks like it will be one of them plus the 2 with the youngest voters. Germany has broken its gerontocracy.
This, too, is a good thing.
275 of 299 counted, die Linke 4.6, keine Berlin
So from the look of it either of Traffic Light (SDP, Green, FDP) or Jamaica (CDU/CSU, Green, FDP) could be viable?
AND that the FDP wants to be in the government too. Because that's what their voters want and expect. Plus they are the BDR's quintessential Party of Government.
Not as messy as it could have been. Those two 3 party coalitions were always going to viable.At least there is a clear first place. Looks like by more than a percent.
Notable that Greens have won what I'd call prestige constituencies in renowned locales such as Cologne, Heidelberg, Frankfurt, Bonn, Karlsruhe
In fact your options would be Union/AfD. Union/Green, or Union/SPD with 80%+ of the seats.
None very likely. A worse bunch of options.
Spill the beans, who's lost???
Ex Bavaria the CDU must be err.. patchy
Done really poorly in the East. Merkel effect? Vote almost halved in her Land of Mecklenberg Vorpommern.
CDU first to third in both.
Late results good for Greens.
And SPD pulling away now. 1.5% in front.
First vote went CDU, Linke, AfD, SPD.
Second votes went SPD, AfD, CDU, Linke.
Much tactical voting.
Only third on the second vote though. They are the night's really big losers.
Berlin-Mitte
Berlin-Pankow
Berlin-Spandau – Charlottenburg Nord
Berlin-Steglitz-Zehlendorf
Berlin-Charlottenburg-Wilmersdorf
Berlin-Lichtenberg
Herne – Bochum II
https://www.bundeswahlleiter.de/en/bundestagswahlen/2021/ergebnisse/bund-99.html