politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Punters remain solidly behind Zac to hold onto Richmond Park

TheScreamingEagles said:

surbiton said:

Mortimer said:

Incidentally, one of my pet theories is that Blair did well as leader because he was supported by small businesses who did very well out of ltd company small income rates...

No. He was a Tory who was the leader of the Labour Party.

Jeez Labour are screwed then. The only Labour leader to win a general election in the last 42 years was a Tory.

Time to wind up the Labour Party.

Yes. On that basis, Labour - as in proper Labour - has won only one working majority in the last 70 years - the same number of World Cups that England have won (and coincidentally in the same year). Odds on a Corbyn/Southgate double?

Where has all this talk of reducing corporation tax come from? Britain is currently running a stonking deficit. While I get that reducing corporation tax in the long run might increase tax take, that isn't going to happen in the short or medium term, and it's in the short and the medium term that the Chancellor needs revenues.

FF43 said:

SouthamObserver said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Who could have predicted this..

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/800614351237476352

The Lady is for turning.

She's no Margaret Thatcher.

It was a very, very stupid thing to say in the first place.

Tax cuts for the best off and for big business. It's just more of the same.

Brexit will mean buying off a raft of special interest groups with diminished revenues. Brexit will screw the poor bloody infantry, who voted for it in a cry to be heard, more comprehensively than ever.

Of course - that was always going to be the case. But with FPTP and Corbyn in place the Tories only need to keep pensioners and well-off home-owners happy and they will be fine.

AlastairMeeks said:

The point about the private poll is interesting. The Conservatives could commission one, because they don't have a candidate in this by-election. But then they could share it with one of the candidates if they so wished, which no doubt he would find helpful in informing how to conduct his campaign.

It would count towards candidate's spending limit.

That's why it much better if a news organisation or rich peer commissions said poll.

Lord Ashcroft was so inadvertently useful to the Tories at GE2015 it helped reinforce Labour's meme about their ground game and contact rates

@TheScreamingEagles Why would it count towards the candidate's cost limit? If he had no part in commissioning it but just happened to get sight of it, surely that would just be a fortunate occurrence.

Otherwise parties could sabotage rivals in by-elections by commissioning polls and then emailing them the results.

FF43 said:

surbiton said:

Mortimer said:

Incidentally, one of my pet theories is that Blair did well as leader because he was supported by small businesses who did very well out of ltd company small income rates...

No. He was a Tory who was the leader of the Labour Party.

He was the "wet" Tory Thatcher systematically got rid of. Combined with being leader of the Labour Party he was unbeatable

It turns out that Blair is to the left of pro-hard Brexit, pro-Putin and pro-tax cuts for the best off Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell.

AlastairMeeks said:

@TheScreamingEagles Why would it count towards the candidate's cost limit? If he had no part in commissioning it but just happened to get sight of it, surely that would just be a fortunate occurrence.

Otherwise parties could sabotage rivals in by-elections by commissioning polls and then emailing them the results.

Doesn't pass the reasonable or smell test. Cui bono as they.

Plus with Theresa May's Chief of Staff being implicated in the investigations in Tory spends at GE2015, the Tories aren't going there.

another_richard said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

another_richard said:

So this Fillon bloke - who nobody on PB seemed to have heard of a week ago - is now favourite to become President of France.

Meanwhile Juppe - who we were told was a certainty - flopped badly.

Two conclusions might be drawn:

1) Elections continue to produce surprise results
2) PB isn't as knowledgeable as it thinks it is

If you look back a thread or several, there are lots of pb punters talking about backing Fillon from 7/1 down. As a latecomer to the party, I took 11/4 yesterday.

And well done to all those who are green on the French election.

I wonder though how many are down overall having previously bet on the supposed certainty Juppe.

I'm underwater here, Juppe best get knocked out next weekend...

SouthamObserver said:

Patrick said:

Back to the idea of abolishing Corporation Tax and resetting other tax rates to absorb accordingly - what would be the politics?
No doubt the left would, as usual, completely miss the point and paint it as Christmas for fat cats.
More interestingly, I suspect the market would be very positive and the EU disgusted as it would pose a direct free market alternative to their centralising, harmonising high tax agenda.
Domestically, if the adjusting/absorbing was done very carefully, sensibly and in a way that was demonstrably more equitable than the status quo ante it could be wildly popular.

With one of the lowest CT rates among the world's big economies the UK has wage stagnation and low R&D investment. Why would making it any lower improve things? It would just mean bigger dividends for shareholders and higher salaries in the boardroom. It's a policy for the 1%. So I expect to see it happen sooner rather than later. John McDonnell will probably cheer it on.

It catches all the luvvies and the companies they set up to avoid tax, and Ken Livingstone.

So what is not to like?

SouthamObserver said:

Patrick said:

Back to the idea of abolishing Corporation Tax and resetting other tax rates to absorb accordingly - what would be the politics?
No doubt the left would, as usual, completely miss the point and paint it as Christmas for fat cats.
More interestingly, I suspect the market would be very positive and the EU disgusted as it would pose a direct free market alternative to their centralising, harmonising high tax agenda.
Domestically, if the adjusting/absorbing was done very carefully, sensibly and in a way that was demonstrably more equitable than the status quo ante it could be wildly popular.

With one of the lowest CT rates among the world's big economies the UK has wage stagnation and low R&D investment. Why would making it any lower improve things? It would just mean bigger dividends for shareholders and higher salaries in the boardroom. It's a policy for the 1%. So I expect to see it happen sooner rather than later. John McDonnell will probably cheer it on.

Cutting CT and increasing tax paid on dividends? Genius idea - stuff those shareholders risking capital, whilst leaving businesses with more cash to pay overbloated fat cat salaries. What could possibly be wrong with that.

AlastairMeeks said:

Where has all this talk of reducing corporation tax come from?

Front page of the Independent.

AlastairMeeks said:

Where has all this talk of reducing corporation tax come from? Britain is currently running a stonking deficit. While I get that reducing corporation tax in the long run might increase tax take, that isn't going to happen in the short or medium term, and it's in the short and the medium term that the Chancellor needs revenues.

https://twitter.com/suttonnick/status/800464932064018432

Pulpstar said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Where has all this talk of reducing corporation tax come from?

Front page of the Independent.

The feedback the government is getting from business must be dire given they have been panicked into this.

Why does May keep running these ideas that simply seem to fall over after a while. There's not even any particular ideological bias/kite flying direction (Grammar schools right, workers on boards, left) to them.

Pulpstar said:

Why does May keep running these ideas that simply seem to fall over after a while. There's not even any particular ideological bias/kite flying direction (Grammar schools right, workers on boards, left) to them.

Because she is a very poor PM who is completely out of her depth.

Paristonda said:

rcs1000 said:

As an aside, I think people are wrong to count Macron out. In the polling, he's only just behind Fillon in the first round (17.5% vs 19%), and Fillon's socially conservative, economically Thatcherite message doesn't go down that well with everyone in France.

Macron's big problem is that he's fighting for the centrist vote with Bayrou, who's currently on about 8% in the polls. If Bayrou were to choose not to stand, which is by no means unlikely, then that 20-1 would look very, very tempting.

Macron v Le Pen in round 2 would be a true demonstration of the new realignment in politics, along Globalist-Nationalist lines rather than traditional left-right lines. A stunning failure of both main parties to fail to make it to round 2.

Socialists should vote tactically for Macron in Round 1 to avoid having to vote for a Republican in Round 2.

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/pickardje/status/800647208089636864

Because May isn't very good?

PlatoSaid said:

@old_labour That Brendan article is superb - thanx for sharing.

https://reason.com/archives/2016/11/20/america-called-bullshit-on-saint-hillary

The big flaw in Brendan's argument is that the little people actually gave most of their votes to Clinton. Trump won among the richest.

TheScreamingEagles said:

surbiton said:

Mortimer said:

Incidentally, one of my pet theories is that Blair did well as leader because he was supported by small businesses who did very well out of ltd company small income rates...

No. He was a Tory who was the leader of the Labour Party.

Jeez Labour are screwed then. The only Labour leader to win a general election in the last 42 years was a Tory.

Time to wind up the Labour Party.

To be fair, we used to be told on pb that every Tory PM whose husband did not have his own Private Eye column was a socialist.

The government is in a very difficult position, and we all should have a degree of sympathy. Getting the best deal for Britain requires two years of hard negotiations. But that also - inevitably - means increased uncertainty for businesses. So, to counteract that Mrs May is offering incentives - whether explicit guarantees for Nissan and BMW, or more general tax cuts. But, of course, these concessions come with costs for the government, whether political or by reducing the room for manoeuvre in other areas.

One for the fantasists who believe the UK has a negotiating position with the EU member states over defence:
https://twitter.com/kennycarwash/status/800648765963169792

SouthamObserver said:

With one of the lowest CT rates among the world's big economies the UK has wage stagnation and low R&D investment. Why would making it any lower improve things? It would just mean bigger dividends for shareholders and higher salaries in the boardroom. It's a policy for the 1%. So I expect to see it happen sooner rather than later. John McDonnell will probably cheer it on.

The UK also has the best labour market in Europe by a country mile, low unemployment, better growth than its neightbours, and has made more progress than any other heavily-indebted G20 country except the US in reducing its deficit. It had - until June 23rd at least - an economy that was the envy of the Western world.

George Osborne was clearly doing something right. Maybe being business-friendly is rather a good idea.

SandyRentool said:

Paristonda said:

rcs1000 said:

As an aside, I think people are wrong to count Macron out. In the polling, he's only just behind Fillon in the first round (17.5% vs 19%), and Fillon's socially conservative, economically Thatcherite message doesn't go down that well with everyone in France.

Macron's big problem is that he's fighting for the centrist vote with Bayrou, who's currently on about 8% in the polls. If Bayrou were to choose not to stand, which is by no means unlikely, then that 20-1 would look very, very tempting.

Macron v Le Pen in round 2 would be a true demonstration of the new realignment in politics, along Globalist-Nationalist lines rather than traditional left-right lines. A stunning failure of both main parties to fail to make it to round 2.

Socialists should vote tactically for Macron in Round 1 to avoid having to vote for a Republican in Round 2.

I think that's quite likely.

SouthamObserver said:

SquareRoot said:

SouthamObserver said:

Pulpstar said:

Why does May keep running these ideas that simply seem to fall over after a while. There's not even any particular ideological bias/kite flying direction (Grammar schools right, workers on boards, left) to them.

Because she is a very poor PM who is completely out of her depth.

bullshit. She has been only in office a month or two.. I'll bet you wouldn't have been saying that after (YOUR.. not my ) sainted Blair nearly had to go over the Ecclestone affair.

Your mindset now seems that because there really is nothing left to bitch about Corbyn, the only thing you can bitch about is the Govt and especially Mrs May.Its very boring and you are in danger of being repetitive..

She needs time as all new PM's do. They grow into the job.

I can only apologise for the fact that you do not like my politics.

You have lost your sense of reasonableness that you were renowned for.

SquareRoot said:

SouthamObserver said:

Pulpstar said:

Why does May keep running these ideas that simply seem to fall over after a while. There's not even any particular ideological bias/kite flying direction (Grammar schools right, workers on boards, left) to them.

Because she is a very poor PM who is completely out of her depth.

bullshit. She has been only in office a month or two.. I'll bet you wouldn't have been saying that after (YOUR.. not my ) sainted Blair nearly had to go over the Ecclestone affair.

Your mindset now seems that because there really is nothing left to bitch about Corbyn, the only thing you can bitch about is the Govt and especially Mrs May.Its very boring and you are in danger of being repetitive..

She needs time as all new PM's do. They grow into the job.

Just because Corbyn is unelectable and dire doesn't mean we should stop the focus on those who are actually in charge.

Pulpstar said:

SquareRoot said:

SouthamObserver said:

Pulpstar said:

Why does May keep running these ideas that simply seem to fall over after a while. There's not even any particular ideological bias/kite flying direction (Grammar schools right, workers on boards, left) to them.

Because she is a very poor PM who is completely out of her depth.

bullshit. She has been only in office a month or two.. I'll bet you wouldn't have been saying that after (YOUR.. not my ) sainted Blair nearly had to go over the Ecclestone affair.

Your mindset now seems that because there really is nothing left to bitch about Corbyn, the only thing you can bitch about is the Govt and especially Mrs May.Its very boring and you are in danger of being repetitive..

She needs time as all new PM's do. They grow into the job.

Just because Corbyn is unelectable and dire doesn't mean we should stop the focus on those who are actually in charge.

And who are also dire, but made electable by Corbyn.

TheScreamingEagles said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Where has all this talk of reducing corporation tax come from? Britain is currently running a stonking deficit. While I get that reducing corporation tax in the long run might increase tax take, that isn't going to happen in the short or medium term, and it's in the short and the medium term that the Chancellor needs revenues.

https://twitter.com/suttonnick/status/800464932064018432

Except, it's the Times. By mid-afternoon we might find their story was based on a kite-flying internal memo from Deloittes.....

rcs1000 said:

The government is in a very difficult position, and we all should have a degree of sympathy.

Those who fought against putting the government in such a position should have sympathy. Those who fought for it should feel a degree of guilt.

SquareRoot said:

SouthamObserver said:

Pulpstar said:

Why does May keep running these ideas that simply seem to fall over after a while. There's not even any particular ideological bias/kite flying direction (Grammar schools right, workers on boards, left) to them.

Because she is a very poor PM who is completely out of her depth.

bullshit. She has been only in office a month or two..

Over 4 months as PM now. Time flies when you're making a success of Brexit...

Richard_Nabavi said:

SouthamObserver said:

With one of the lowest CT rates among the world's big economies the UK has wage stagnation and low R&D investment. Why would making it any lower improve things? It would just mean bigger dividends for shareholders and higher salaries in the boardroom. It's a policy for the 1%. So I expect to see it happen sooner rather than later. John McDonnell will probably cheer it on.

The UK also has the best labour market in Europe by a country mile, low unemployment, better growth than its neightbours, and has made more progress than any other heavily-indebted G20 country except the US in reducing its deficit. It had - until June 23rd at least - an economy that was the envy of the Western world.

George Osborne was clearly doing something right. Maybe being business-friendly is rather a good idea.

It is. But there is a balance. Having lower CT than almost every single one of our competitors has not led to higher wages or increased R&D spend.

We are also in the process of cutting services and incomes for the lowest paid and the JAMs. Who needs more attention now? Them or those who use CT cuts to increase dividends and to boost boardroom salaries?

Advance notice: On Friday evening there is a meeting of Leeds Central CLP GC. Let's see if the new masters raise the issue of deselection. McDonnell is egging them on...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38044763

Pulpstar said:

SquareRoot said:

SouthamObserver said:

Pulpstar said:

Why does May keep running these ideas that simply seem to fall over after a while. There's not even any particular ideological bias/kite flying direction (Grammar schools right, workers on boards, left) to them.

Because she is a very poor PM who is completely out of her depth.

bullshit. She has been only in office a month or two.. I'll bet you wouldn't have been saying that after (YOUR.. not my ) sainted Blair nearly had to go over the Ecclestone affair.

Your mindset now seems that because there really is nothing left to bitch about Corbyn, the only thing you can bitch about is the Govt and especially Mrs May.Its very boring and you are in danger of being repetitive..

She needs time as all new PM's do. They grow into the job.

Just because Corbyn is unelectable and dire doesn't mean we should stop the focus on those who are actually in charge.

focus of course but reasoned analysis rather than just bitching.

I am sure I was called out about my "analysis" of Gordon Brown, but at least I proved to be 100% right. the worst PM in living memory.

SquareRoot said:

I am sure I was called out about my "analysis" of Gordon Brown, but at least I proved to be 100% right. the worst PM in living memory.

To be fair he had to clean up the mess left by the previous PM who'd let a maniac control the economy for 10 years.

SquareRoot said:

SouthamObserver said:

Pulpstar said:

Why does May keep running these ideas that simply seem to fall over after a while. There's not even any particular ideological bias/kite flying direction (Grammar schools right, workers on boards, left) to them.

Because she is a very poor PM who is completely out of her depth.

bullshit. She has been only in office a month or two.. I'll bet you wouldn't have been saying that after (YOUR.. not my ) sainted Blair nearly had to go over the Ecclestone affair.

Your mindset now seems that because there really is nothing left to bitch about Corbyn, the only thing you can bitch about is the Govt and especially Mrs May.Its very boring and you are in danger of being repetitive..

She needs time as all new PM's do. They grow into the job.

I tend to browse PB from bottom to top, so quite often read most of a post before seeing the author. It's fascinating how often you can predict the author from tone and defensiveness, and who is the subject of their defensiveness.

A 'month or two', or even four.

AlastairMeeks said:

Clearly the magic money tree's roots have tapped into the terrain on the right.

Whoever would have thought it?

SouthamObserver said:

It is. But there is a balance. Having lower CT than almost every single one of our competitors has not led to higher wages or increased R&D spend.

We are also in the process of cutting services and incomes for the lowest paid and the JAMs. Who needs more attention now? Them or those who use CT cuts to increase dividends and to boost boardroom salaries?

Salaries are paid pre-tax, so the rate of corporation tax isn't terribly relevant to their level, whether it be the salaries of workers or the board. Yes, cutting CT allows increased dividends to be paid, which is the entire idea. If you want to attract and encourage investment, reducing taxes on it is a good idea. That way the investment is attracted here rather than eleswhere.

Meanwhile the lowest paid are being given a stonking payrise, thanks to a Conservative Chancellor. It is, as you rightly say, a balance, and as the results show Osborne balanced it well. We'll see on Wednesday what Phillip Hammond does, but he hasn't got much room for manoeuvre to do things very differently.

Richard_Nabavi said:

Cutting corporation tax to zero and trying to raise the revenue from dividends instead doesn't work, for two reasons. Firstly it produces a massive perverse incentive for companies to hoard cash, rather as Apple does. Secondly, it complicats the problem of getting tax revenues from your own country's business operations when the shareholders are foreign.

That is a great point regarding the overseas split of corporation tax and dividends. It is an error to regard all forms of tax and benefit as applying solely to UK citizens. Inevitably there will be differential change.

rcs1000 said:

Re deficits, really?

Our budget deficit is worse than: the US, France, Germany, Canada and Italy.

I guess it is better than Japan's, but that's about it.

I said more progress on the deficit. We started in 2010 with the worst position in the developed world other than Greece.

On topic: Having canvassed over a hundred households face to face (and more on the phone) I'm sticking with my estimate that the chance of a LibDem victory is about 33% (2/1 against or 3s on Betfair). About the same chance as Trump had. Sarah probably won't win but it is entirely possible she will.

My reading is that the tactical vote from Lab and Green is solid - which halves the 23,000 majority. The key is how many Tory voters will switch to LibDem (some definitely will because of Brexit - no idea how many) and how many Tories will sit this one out and not vote (an unnecessary by-election, only vote Tory etc). I just don't know. I doubt anyone does.

I believe that voters who want change have more energy to vote than those who are content with the status quo. (Some evidence: EU ref, Trump, Obama).

Brexit is now the status quo -"a done deal". Not much energy to go out to defend it. But lots of energy by Remainers to oppose it.

Not published yet, do I smell that the LIb Dems are doing very well.

Samsung's annus horribilis continues, 4 confirmed reports of Galaxy S7 and S7 Edge phones exploding in the US. Samsung investigating, but a little birdie told me that the S7 had switched battery supplier from Murata and Panasonic to Samsung SDI after there was so much spare capacity left from the cancellation of the Note 7. If that's true then the management are stupider than I expected.

Richard_Nabavi said:

SouthamObserver said:

It is. But there is a balance. Having lower CT than almost every single one of our competitors has not led to higher wages or increased R&D spend.

We are also in the process of cutting services and incomes for the lowest paid and the JAMs. Who needs more attention now? Them or those who use CT cuts to increase dividends and to boost boardroom salaries?

Salaries are paid pre-tax, so the rate of corporation tax isn't terribly relevant to their level, whether it be the salaries of workers or the board. Yes, cutting CT allows increased dividends to be paid, which is the entire idea. If you want to attract and encourage investment, reducing taxes on it is a good idea. That way the investment is attracted here rather than eleswhere.

Meanwhile the lowest paid are being given a stonking payrise, thanks to a Conservative Chancellor. It is, as you rightly say, a balance, and as the results show Osborne balanced it well. We'll see on Wednesday what Phillip Hammond does, but he hasn't got much room for manoeuvre to do things very differently.

The lowest paid are actually seeing their incomes cut significantly, along with the services they rely on.

Salaries are paid pre-tax, they are set post-tax.

The investment that our lower CT rates has attracted clearly has had little or no effect on incomes and has not led to any kind of surge in R&D spend. I am not sure it has seen any consistent uptick in tax-take either (though I could be wrong on that).

SouthamObserver said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

SouthamObserver said:

It is. But there is a balance. Having lower CT than almost every single one of our competitors has not led to higher wages or increased R&D spend.

We are also in the process of cutting services and incomes for the lowest paid and the JAMs. Who needs more attention now? Them or those who use CT cuts to increase dividends and to boost boardroom salaries?

Salaries are paid pre-tax, so the rate of corporation tax isn't terribly relevant to their level, whether it be the salaries of workers or the board. Yes, cutting CT allows increased dividends to be paid, which is the entire idea. If you want to attract and encourage investment, reducing taxes on it is a good idea. That way the investment is attracted here rather than eleswhere.

Meanwhile the lowest paid are being given a stonking payrise, thanks to a Conservative Chancellor. It is, as you rightly say, a balance, and as the results show Osborne balanced it well. We'll see on Wednesday what Phillip Hammond does, but he hasn't got much room for manoeuvre to do things very differently.

The lowest paid are actually seeing their incomes cut significantly, along with the services they rely on.

Salaries are paid pre-tax, they are set post-tax.

The lowest paid just got a huge pay rise and are set for more until 2019. If someone chooses to work part time and sees their income go down to to tax credit withdrawal they have no one to blame but themselves.

So, in the true spirit of politicalbetting, who shall be the first to say "yes, that may be, but what about ... ?"

Moses_ said:

More end of the world news.....

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2228104/facebook-to-open-new-london-headquarters-in-2017-creating-500-jobs-and-increasing-uk-workforce-to-1500/

Is that the sixth or the seventh time that a PB Brexiteer has mentioned this?
The nation rejoices as employment & resources black spot gets much needed good news.

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

SouthamObserver said:

It is. But there is a balance. Having lower CT than almost every single one of our competitors has not led to higher wages or increased R&D spend.

We are also in the process of cutting services and incomes for the lowest paid and the JAMs. Who needs more attention now? Them or those who use CT cuts to increase dividends and to boost boardroom salaries?

Salaries are paid pre-tax, so the rate of corporation tax isn't terribly relevant to their level, whether it be the salaries of workers or the board. Yes, cutting CT allows increased dividends to be paid, which is the entire idea. If you want to attract and encourage investment, reducing taxes on it is a good idea. That way the investment is attracted here rather than eleswhere.

Meanwhile the lowest paid are being given a stonking payrise, thanks to a Conservative Chancellor. It is, as you rightly say, a balance, and as the results show Osborne balanced it well. We'll see on Wednesday what Phillip Hammond does, but he hasn't got much room for manoeuvre to do things very differently.

The lowest paid are actually seeing their incomes cut significantly, along with the services they rely on.

Salaries are paid pre-tax, they are set post-tax.

The lowest paid just got a huge pay rise and are set for more until 2019. If someone chooses to work part time and sees their income go down to to tax credit withdrawal they have no one to blame but themselves.

Yes, if someone "chooses" to work part-time you might have a point. How many do?

SouthamObserver said:

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

SouthamObserver said:

It is. But there is a balance. Having lower CT than almost every single one of our competitors has not led to higher wages or increased R&D spend.

We are also in the process of cutting services and incomes for the lowest paid and the JAMs. Who needs more attention now? Them or those who use CT cuts to increase dividends and to boost boardroom salaries?

Salaries are paid pre-tax, so the rate of corporation tax isn't terribly relevant to their level, whether it be the salaries of workers or the board. Yes, cutting CT allows increased dividends to be paid, which is the entire idea. If you want to attract and encourage investment, reducing taxes on it is a good idea. That way the investment is attracted here rather than eleswhere.

Meanwhile the lowest paid are being given a stonking payrise, thanks to a Conservative Chancellor. It is, as you rightly say, a balance, and as the results show Osborne balanced it well. We'll see on Wednesday what Phillip Hammond does, but he hasn't got much room for manoeuvre to do things very differently.

The lowest paid are actually seeing their incomes cut significantly, along with the services they rely on.

Salaries are paid pre-tax, they are set post-tax.

The lowest paid just got a huge pay rise and are set for more until 2019. If someone chooses to work part time and sees their income go down to to tax credit withdrawal they have no one to blame but themselves.

Yes, if someone "chooses" to work part-time you might have a point. How many do?

Quite a lot. I have the report, give me a minute.

Edit: 86.5% have chosen part time work. 13.5% who are working part time want to work full time. Out of 8.5m part time workers.

I feel a bit light-headed. I've just bet £5 on François Hollande at 100.0. Well, someone had to, and who knows what weird things might happen in 2017?

SouthamObserver said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

SouthamObserver said:

The lowest paid are actually seeing their incomes cut significantly, along with the services they rely on.

Salaries are paid pre-tax, they are set post-tax.

We were talking about the effect of corporation tax rates on salaries. As I correctly pointed out, the wages of the lowest-paid are increasing substantially at the same time that corporation tax is being slightly reduced.

Now you seem to be switching to talking about benefits and public services. That's a different point altogether, even if it were true.

Nope, it's all inter-related. If you cut CT you have to make up the difference elsewhere by cutting public spending in one way or another.

Not if the mechanism for recovery is increased wages and tax credit cuts. All you're really doing is transferring the burden of wages from the state to the corporation.

Deleted, quoted wrong post