For those betting on a Labour poll lead in 2021 – politicalbetting.com

Philip_Thompson said:

pigeon said:

HYUFD said:

Stuartinromford said:

MaxPB said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

MaxPB said:

Aslan said:

MaxPB said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

MaxPB said:

Real Tories all coming out against the idiot NI rise. Boris has lost it, Rishi needs to push back and axe it completely now. Press the advantage.

As I understand it Rishi wanted a higher increase

No, Rishi wanted no tax rise, Boris and Sajid wanted 2% on employees and 2% on employers, he forced them down to 1% on each. If he pushes again now he can get rid of it completely.

Rishi is in the right. We need to pay down the debt, not leave it for future generations to pay off. Anti-tax zealotry is out of control on the backbenches.

Since when is this proposed tax rise going to pay down the debt?! It's tax and spend, the state is deciding to take a larger proportion of the economy leaving less for everyone else. The solution is and has always been to grow the bloody economy. The tax burden is already too high.

With the best will in the world tax rises are coming no matter who is HMG

This specific tax is to fund social care. Tax the people who use it. Pensioners can afford the tax, working people can't. Raising £20bn from over 65s would be easy and it's not as though they can easily leave the country to a lower tax jurisdiction. Again, 16% of pensioners are in the higher tax bracket. They pay at least £3000 less in tax than someone who works and they receive at least £9k in benefits. That 16% can cover the whole £20bn and more. It's time to make taxes fair.

Trouble is that wealthy retired people are the core demographic for Johnson's Conservatives (and to be fair, they always have been in modern times). And less wealthy but comfortable retired homeowners in the north are the next ones on Johnson's list. That's where his majority is from.

Anyone else in the great Conservative tradition is like the wife who has been dumped for a fruiter model.

Except there's no alimony this time.

Exactly, home owning over 65s are the Tories core vote and those in the 45-65 bracket who own property and are waiting for an inheritance are who won the Tories the last general election.

Even in 2019 Labour won under 44s so they can largely be ignored as far as the Tories are concerned, most of the under 40s are not voting Tory

Gives me a convenient opportunity to post this graphic from 2019, showing the results of research into where the two main parties derive their support:



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-47909281

As you say, the Tory core vote is (1) old people, who are also largely homeowners, and (2) middle class, middle aged or near pensionable people, who are mostly homeowners or mortgage payers, and a great many of whom are also expectant heirs.

Based on this, there are three things that a Johnson (i.e. populist) Tory Government ought not to do:

*Make pensioners pay for anything
*Try to put new taxes on property
*Raise inheritance tax

If they do actually elect to deprive oldies of the bumper state pension rise they have coming next Spring then it will be a very brave decision - in the Sir Humphrey sense of the word.

Its worth noting that research is from when Theresa May was in charge and matches the 2017 election, which is why the Tories lost their majority.

In the 2019 election the Tory/Labour crossover age dropped down to 39, which accounted for the Tory landslide majority.

Taking a dump on working voters will take us back to the dark days of Theresa May.

nico679 said:

So younger people who have been shafted by pensioners over Brexit and then shafted over covid to protect the same pensioners are now expected to stump up an NI rise to allow the same group to pay fuck all towards the increased social care costs .

They should means test pensioners and stick a tax rise on those who can afford it .

Benpointer said:

Aslan said:

Benpointer said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MaxPB said:

Real Tories all coming out against the idiot NI rise. Boris has lost it, Rishi needs to push back and axe it completely now. Press the advantage.

Low taxes and grow the economy. We should be set for an economic boom now which will transform the budget for the better anyway. Strangling that at birth with taxes is idiotic.

EDIT: Same answer applies to Benpointer just above.

"Low taxes and grow the economy" sounds great but how exactly do you think low taxes (and presumably the consequent public spending cuts) will grow the economy?

And of course even if we cut taxes and the economy did grow faster, the deficit would still be wider overall and they would use the situation as a reason to cut taxes again. Soon you end up like the clusterfuck in Kansas. It is zealotry, uninformed by real world evidence. They talk about the Laffer curve, but pretend there isn't a left hand side of it.

Ah the fabled Laffer curve - a curve with no formula, no coordinates, no data - about as real as a rainbow with a pot of gold at the end.

Benpointer said:

Aslan said:

Benpointer said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MaxPB said:

Real Tories all coming out against the idiot NI rise. Boris has lost it, Rishi needs to push back and axe it completely now. Press the advantage.

Low taxes and grow the economy. We should be set for an economic boom now which will transform the budget for the better anyway. Strangling that at birth with taxes is idiotic.

EDIT: Same answer applies to Benpointer just above.

"Low taxes and grow the economy" sounds great but how exactly do you think low taxes (and presumably the consequent public spending cuts) will grow the economy?

And of course even if we cut taxes and the economy did grow faster, the deficit would still be wider overall and they would use the situation as a reason to cut taxes again. Soon you end up like the clusterfuck in Kansas. It is zealotry, uninformed by real world evidence. They talk about the Laffer curve, but pretend there isn't a left hand side of it.

Ah the fabled Laffer curve - a curve with no formula, no coordinates, no data - about as real as a rainbow with a pot of gold at the end.

MaxPB said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Elderly: the young should pay their way and pay their tuition fees

Also elderly: we will not pay for our bus passes, TfL travel or social care!

Also elderly: we all had our own houses at your age by working hard! But give us all your money for rent.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

pigeon said:

HYUFD said:

Stuartinromford said:

MaxPB said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

MaxPB said:

Aslan said:

MaxPB said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

MaxPB said:

Real Tories all coming out against the idiot NI rise. Boris has lost it, Rishi needs to push back and axe it completely now. Press the advantage.

As I understand it Rishi wanted a higher increase

No, Rishi wanted no tax rise, Boris and Sajid wanted 2% on employees and 2% on employers, he forced them down to 1% on each. If he pushes again now he can get rid of it completely.

Rishi is in the right. We need to pay down the debt, not leave it for future generations to pay off. Anti-tax zealotry is out of control on the backbenches.

Since when is this proposed tax rise going to pay down the debt?! It's tax and spend, the state is deciding to take a larger proportion of the economy leaving less for everyone else. The solution is and has always been to grow the bloody economy. The tax burden is already too high.

With the best will in the world tax rises are coming no matter who is HMG

This specific tax is to fund social care. Tax the people who use it. Pensioners can afford the tax, working people can't. Raising £20bn from over 65s would be easy and it's not as though they can easily leave the country to a lower tax jurisdiction. Again, 16% of pensioners are in the higher tax bracket. They pay at least £3000 less in tax than someone who works and they receive at least £9k in benefits. That 16% can cover the whole £20bn and more. It's time to make taxes fair.

Trouble is that wealthy retired people are the core demographic for Johnson's Conservatives (and to be fair, they always have been in modern times). And less wealthy but comfortable retired homeowners in the north are the next ones on Johnson's list. That's where his majority is from.

Anyone else in the great Conservative tradition is like the wife who has been dumped for a fruiter model.

Except there's no alimony this time.

Exactly, home owning over 65s are the Tories core vote and those in the 45-65 bracket who own property and are waiting for an inheritance are who won the Tories the last general election.

Even in 2019 Labour won under 44s so they can largely be ignored as far as the Tories are concerned, most of the under 40s are not voting Tory

Gives me a convenient opportunity to post this graphic from 2019, showing the results of research into where the two main parties derive their support:



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-47909281

As you say, the Tory core vote is (1) old people, who are also largely homeowners, and (2) middle class, middle aged or near pensionable people, who are mostly homeowners or mortgage payers, and a great many of whom are also expectant heirs.

Based on this, there are three things that a Johnson (i.e. populist) Tory Government ought not to do:

*Make pensioners pay for anything
*Try to put new taxes on property
*Raise inheritance tax

If they do actually elect to deprive oldies of the bumper state pension rise they have coming next Spring then it will be a very brave decision - in the Sir Humphrey sense of the word.

And the correct one (I am a pensioner so would be affected)

Good, you should pay. Or do you think I shouldn't pay my tuition fees?

Philip_Thompson said:

pigeon said:

Philip_Thompson said:

pigeon said:

HYUFD said:

Stuartinromford said:

MaxPB said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

MaxPB said:

Aslan said:

MaxPB said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

MaxPB said:

Real Tories all coming out against the idiot NI rise. Boris has lost it, Rishi needs to push back and axe it completely now. Press the advantage.

As I understand it Rishi wanted a higher increase

No, Rishi wanted no tax rise, Boris and Sajid wanted 2% on employees and 2% on employers, he forced them down to 1% on each. If he pushes again now he can get rid of it completely.

Rishi is in the right. We need to pay down the debt, not leave it for future generations to pay off. Anti-tax zealotry is out of control on the backbenches.

Since when is this proposed tax rise going to pay down the debt?! It's tax and spend, the state is deciding to take a larger proportion of the economy leaving less for everyone else. The solution is and has always been to grow the bloody economy. The tax burden is already too high.

With the best will in the world tax rises are coming no matter who is HMG

This specific tax is to fund social care. Tax the people who use it. Pensioners can afford the tax, working people can't. Raising £20bn from over 65s would be easy and it's not as though they can easily leave the country to a lower tax jurisdiction. Again, 16% of pensioners are in the higher tax bracket. They pay at least £3000 less in tax than someone who works and they receive at least £9k in benefits. That 16% can cover the whole £20bn and more. It's time to make taxes fair.

Trouble is that wealthy retired people are the core demographic for Johnson's Conservatives (and to be fair, they always have been in modern times). And less wealthy but comfortable retired homeowners in the north are the next ones on Johnson's list. That's where his majority is from.

Anyone else in the great Conservative tradition is like the wife who has been dumped for a fruiter model.

Except there's no alimony this time.

Exactly, home owning over 65s are the Tories core vote and those in the 45-65 bracket who own property and are waiting for an inheritance are who won the Tories the last general election.

Even in 2019 Labour won under 44s so they can largely be ignored as far as the Tories are concerned, most of the under 40s are not voting Tory

Gives me a convenient opportunity to post this graphic from 2019, showing the results of research into where the two main parties derive their support:



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-47909281

As you say, the Tory core vote is (1) old people, who are also largely homeowners, and (2) middle class, middle aged or near pensionable people, who are mostly homeowners or mortgage payers, and a great many of whom are also expectant heirs.

Based on this, there are three things that a Johnson (i.e. populist) Tory Government ought not to do:

*Make pensioners pay for anything
*Try to put new taxes on property
*Raise inheritance tax

If they do actually elect to deprive oldies of the bumper state pension rise they have coming next Spring then it will be a very brave decision - in the Sir Humphrey sense of the word.

Its worth noting that research is from when Theresa May was in charge and matches the 2017 election, which is why the Tories lost their majority.

In the 2019 election the Tory/Labour crossover age dropped down to 39, which accounted for the Tory landslide majority.

Taking a dump on working voters will take us back to the dark days of Theresa May.

Indeed, although I doubt that the pattern of party support changed that radically at the last GE. The point holds: the Tories are in hock to the old and have little incentive to do anything to favour the young.

The pattern of party support did change radically at the last GE. The crossover age of voting Tory instead of Labour dropped all the way from 55 to 39. Hence why the Tories won an eighty seat majority instead of no overall majority.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

MaxPB said:

londonpubman said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

MaxPB said:

Aslan said:

MaxPB said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

MaxPB said:

Real Tories all coming out against the idiot NI rise. Boris has lost it, Rishi needs to push back and axe it completely now. Press the advantage.

As I understand it Rishi wanted a higher increase

No, Rishi wanted no tax rise, Boris and Sajid wanted 2% on employees and 2% on employers, he forced them down to 1% on each. If he pushes again now he can get rid of it completely.

Rishi is in the right. We need to pay down the debt, not leave it for future generations to pay off. Anti-tax zealotry is out of control on the backbenches.

Since when is this proposed tax rise going to pay down the debt?! It's tax and spend, the state is deciding to take a larger proportion of the economy leaving less for everyone else. The solution is and has always been to grow the bloody economy. The tax burden is already too high.

With the best will in the world tax rises are coming no matter who is HMG

Absolutely correct as usual Big G.

People like @MaxPB and Philip Thompson live in a fantasy world and don't understand that wealthy people such as they need to contribute to Society rather than just being focused on their own pockets.

I who am noted for being moderate and centre on here am proud to confirm that in my last 10 years of working I paid (approx) £1m tax and NI. It showed that I paid my way as well as being massively successful. 👍

My net rate of tax was 42% last year. Get off your high horse, you're not the only person with an annual six figure tax bill and I'll be paying it for many more years than you did.

My own situation isn't relevant, my issue is working people on modest incomes being forced to pay when there's rich pensioners who can easily be taxed at source for significantly more than they pay now and have their state pension tapered down to zero from £50k+

I have no idea how a pensioners receives a state pension of £50,000

londonpubman said:

MaxPB said:

londonpubman said:

MaxPB said:

londonpubman said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

MaxPB said:

Aslan said:

MaxPB said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

MaxPB said:

Real Tories all coming out against the idiot NI rise. Boris has lost it, Rishi needs to push back and axe it completely now. Press the advantage.

As I understand it Rishi wanted a higher increase

No, Rishi wanted no tax rise, Boris and Sajid wanted 2% on employees and 2% on employers, he forced them down to 1% on each. If he pushes again now he can get rid of it completely.

Rishi is in the right. We need to pay down the debt, not leave it for future generations to pay off. Anti-tax zealotry is out of control on the backbenches.

Since when is this proposed tax rise going to pay down the debt?! It's tax and spend, the state is deciding to take a larger proportion of the economy leaving less for everyone else. The solution is and has always been to grow the bloody economy. The tax burden is already too high.

With the best will in the world tax rises are coming no matter who is HMG

Absolutely correct as usual Big G.

People like @MaxPB and Philip Thompson live in a fantasy world and don't understand that wealthy people such as they need to contribute to Society rather than just being focused on their own pockets.

I who am noted for being moderate and centre on here am proud to confirm that in my last 10 years of working I paid (approx) £1m tax and NI. It showed that I paid my way as well as being massively successful. 👍

My net rate of tax was 42% last year. Get off your high horse, you're not the only person with an annual six figure tax bill and I'll be paying it for many more years than you did.

My own situation isn't relevant, my issue is working people on modest incomes being forced to pay when there's rich pensioners who can easily be taxed at source for significantly more than they pay now and have their state pension tapered down to zero from £50k+

Well done you managed a post without swearing at me.

If you are in the 42% tax band you are no where near paying £100,000 tax a year.

I was a regular visitor to the AR band even in the good old days when it was 50%. So 52% technically on your basis.

If you ever get to earning more than £100k a year you will enjoy the 60%/effective 62% band. Probably 63% by then

My net rate of tax, as in the tax paid on all of my income. Not the tax band. I just looked it up it was actually a 44% net rate of tax. My current tax band is the additional rate plus the 2% NI. It's just easier to talk about the net or effective tax rate.

I enjoy swearing at you because you're an entitled old fool and you seem to believe that you're the only one who ever worked hard for a living and now you want a life with your hand in everyone else's pocket.

LOL - and Philip is embarrassing himself too by liking this post - you still fail to grasp the basic point.

I don't need or want my hand in any one's pocket. I am self made and successful. I am happy to pay my way. I have said on here that the tax loading for social care should be on income tax not NI. You seem scared to pay a little more tax.

PS if you are on the AR its 47% (45% + 2% NI). You seem ignorant of this just as your group of supposedly sophisticated WhatsApp friends didn't know that NI is not paid on pensions, something that anyone with a basic understanding of tax would know.

I would call you a twat. But that could be deemed to be swearing so I won't.

Enjoy your money. And your family's money. That's you that is!

DavidL said:

I am a fiscal conservative but I am also a realist. The demands on the state have increased out of all recognition and traditional balance. We need another £10bn for health care to start dealing with the backlog and long Covid. We need to increase the social care budget substantially. We have children who have missed the best part of 2 years education and need concentrated and focused help to catch up. We have a huge new debt mountain to service, not all of it printed.

The argument that the State can address all of these immediate and very pressing issues by keeping taxes low and growth is frankly fantasy. Hundred of thousands of businesses will not be paying taxes for a year or two given the losses they have accrued over the last 2 years. Many will not survive. Those that replace them will not be generating much tax revenue for some time.


There are massive hits to both sides of the P&L account at the same time: expenditure massively increased and income falling. The issue is not whether taxes have to increase. The issue is which taxes payable by whom. My problem with NI is that it taxes the working part of the population who have already borne the brunt of this. That 8% reflects how much income people lost last year. The burden needs to be shared and protecting our better off pensioners should not be a priority, indeed they are an obvious target. But taxes need to increase. No question.

Benpointer said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Benpointer said:

Aslan said:

Benpointer said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MaxPB said:

Real Tories all coming out against the idiot NI rise. Boris has lost it, Rishi needs to push back and axe it completely now. Press the advantage.

Low taxes and grow the economy. We should be set for an economic boom now which will transform the budget for the better anyway. Strangling that at birth with taxes is idiotic.

EDIT: Same answer applies to Benpointer just above.

"Low taxes and grow the economy" sounds great but how exactly do you think low taxes (and presumably the consequent public spending cuts) will grow the economy?

And of course even if we cut taxes and the economy did grow faster, the deficit would still be wider overall and they would use the situation as a reason to cut taxes again. Soon you end up like the clusterfuck in Kansas. It is zealotry, uninformed by real world evidence. They talk about the Laffer curve, but pretend there isn't a left hand side of it.

Ah the fabled Laffer curve - a curve with no formula, no coordinates, no data - about as real as a rainbow with a pot of gold at the end.

That's like saying the Bell curve isn't real because there's no formula etc

Of course the curve is real, and of course you can be on the left hand side of it. There's no inevitability of being on the right hand side.

I just happen to believe that a 75% real marginal tax rate on income is on the left hand side of it.

Don't be silly, a 'bell curve' is a style of curve reflecting normal distribution; it is not seeking to describe any specific data relationship although there are plenty of documented real-life situations that produce a bell-curve.

A Laffer curve is a conjectured relationship between taxation levels and tax-take that has no actual data to support it but is nevertheless treated with sacred awe by neoliberals.

Philip_Thompson said:

londonpubman said:

MaxPB said:

londonpubman said:

MaxPB said:

londonpubman said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

MaxPB said:

Aslan said:

MaxPB said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

MaxPB said:

Real Tories all coming out against the idiot NI rise. Boris has lost it, Rishi needs to push back and axe it completely now. Press the advantage.

As I understand it Rishi wanted a higher increase

No, Rishi wanted no tax rise, Boris and Sajid wanted 2% on employees and 2% on employers, he forced them down to 1% on each. If he pushes again now he can get rid of it completely.

Rishi is in the right. We need to pay down the debt, not leave it for future generations to pay off. Anti-tax zealotry is out of control on the backbenches.

Since when is this proposed tax rise going to pay down the debt?! It's tax and spend, the state is deciding to take a larger proportion of the economy leaving less for everyone else. The solution is and has always been to grow the bloody economy. The tax burden is already too high.

With the best will in the world tax rises are coming no matter who is HMG

Absolutely correct as usual Big G.

People like @MaxPB and Philip Thompson live in a fantasy world and don't understand that wealthy people such as they need to contribute to Society rather than just being focused on their own pockets.

I who am noted for being moderate and centre on here am proud to confirm that in my last 10 years of working I paid (approx) £1m tax and NI. It showed that I paid my way as well as being massively successful. 👍

My net rate of tax was 42% last year. Get off your high horse, you're not the only person with an annual six figure tax bill and I'll be paying it for many more years than you did.

My own situation isn't relevant, my issue is working people on modest incomes being forced to pay when there's rich pensioners who can easily be taxed at source for significantly more than they pay now and have their state pension tapered down to zero from £50k+

Well done you managed a post without swearing at me.

If you are in the 42% tax band you are no where near paying £100,000 tax a year.

I was a regular visitor to the AR band even in the good old days when it was 50%. So 52% technically on your basis.

If you ever get to earning more than £100k a year you will enjoy the 60%/effective 62% band. Probably 63% by then

My net rate of tax, as in the tax paid on all of my income. Not the tax band. I just looked it up it was actually a 44% net rate of tax. My current tax band is the additional rate plus the 2% NI. It's just easier to talk about the net or effective tax rate.

I enjoy swearing at you because you're an entitled old fool and you seem to believe that you're the only one who ever worked hard for a living and now you want a life with your hand in everyone else's pocket.

LOL - and Philip is embarrassing himself too by liking this post - you still fail to grasp the basic point.

I don't need or want my hand in any one's pocket. I am self made and successful. I am happy to pay my way. I have said on here that the tax loading for social care should be on income tax not NI. You seem scared to pay a little more tax.

PS if you are on the AR its 47% (45% + 2% NI). You seem ignorant of this just as your group of supposedly sophisticated WhatsApp friends didn't know that NI is not paid on pensions, something that anyone with a basic understanding of tax would know.

I would call you a twat. But that could be deemed to be swearing so I won't.

Enjoy your money. And your family's money. That's you that is!

If you're self-made, successful and happy to pay your own way then you'd have no objection to paying for your own social care instead of burdening taxpayers with it.

FrancisUrquhart said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

pigeon said:

HYUFD said:

Stuartinromford said:

MaxPB said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

MaxPB said:

Aslan said:

MaxPB said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

MaxPB said:

Real Tories all coming out against the idiot NI rise. Boris has lost it, Rishi needs to push back and axe it completely now. Press the advantage.

As I understand it Rishi wanted a higher increase

No, Rishi wanted no tax rise, Boris and Sajid wanted 2% on employees and 2% on employers, he forced them down to 1% on each. If he pushes again now he can get rid of it completely.

Rishi is in the right. We need to pay down the debt, not leave it for future generations to pay off. Anti-tax zealotry is out of control on the backbenches.

Since when is this proposed tax rise going to pay down the debt?! It's tax and spend, the state is deciding to take a larger proportion of the economy leaving less for everyone else. The solution is and has always been to grow the bloody economy. The tax burden is already too high.

With the best will in the world tax rises are coming no matter who is HMG

This specific tax is to fund social care. Tax the people who use it. Pensioners can afford the tax, working people can't. Raising £20bn from over 65s would be easy and it's not as though they can easily leave the country to a lower tax jurisdiction. Again, 16% of pensioners are in the higher tax bracket. They pay at least £3000 less in tax than someone who works and they receive at least £9k in benefits. That 16% can cover the whole £20bn and more. It's time to make taxes fair.

Trouble is that wealthy retired people are the core demographic for Johnson's Conservatives (and to be fair, they always have been in modern times). And less wealthy but comfortable retired homeowners in the north are the next ones on Johnson's list. That's where his majority is from.

Anyone else in the great Conservative tradition is like the wife who has been dumped for a fruiter model.

Except there's no alimony this time.

Exactly, home owning over 65s are the Tories core vote and those in the 45-65 bracket who own property and are waiting for an inheritance are who won the Tories the last general election.

Even in 2019 Labour won under 44s so they can largely be ignored as far as the Tories are concerned, most of the under 40s are not voting Tory

Gives me a convenient opportunity to post this graphic from 2019, showing the results of research into where the two main parties derive their support:



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-47909281

As you say, the Tory core vote is (1) old people, who are also largely homeowners, and (2) middle class, middle aged or near pensionable people, who are mostly homeowners or mortgage payers, and a great many of whom are also expectant heirs.

Based on this, there are three things that a Johnson (i.e. populist) Tory Government ought not to do:

*Make pensioners pay for anything
*Try to put new taxes on property
*Raise inheritance tax

If they do actually elect to deprive oldies of the bumper state pension rise they have coming next Spring then it will be a very brave decision - in the Sir Humphrey sense of the word.

And the correct one (I am a pensioner so would be affected)

Good, you should pay. Or do you think I shouldn't pay my tuition fees?

Tuition fees were a labour policy and agreed by the lib dems

My granddaughter is starting a five year course at Leeds next week and the fees are eye watering

And when you say I should pay, you do know it is the amount of increase being argued over here not a reduction in the state pension

People continue to look at this in total wrong way. Very few people will ever pay those fees, in reality for most people it is a capped graduate tax, which is basically what would happen if there weren't any fees.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

pigeon said:

HYUFD said:

Stuartinromford said:

MaxPB said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

MaxPB said:

Aslan said:

MaxPB said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

MaxPB said:

Real Tories all coming out against the idiot NI rise. Boris has lost it, Rishi needs to push back and axe it completely now. Press the advantage.

As I understand it Rishi wanted a higher increase

No, Rishi wanted no tax rise, Boris and Sajid wanted 2% on employees and 2% on employers, he forced them down to 1% on each. If he pushes again now he can get rid of it completely.

Rishi is in the right. We need to pay down the debt, not leave it for future generations to pay off. Anti-tax zealotry is out of control on the backbenches.

Since when is this proposed tax rise going to pay down the debt?! It's tax and spend, the state is deciding to take a larger proportion of the economy leaving less for everyone else. The solution is and has always been to grow the bloody economy. The tax burden is already too high.

With the best will in the world tax rises are coming no matter who is HMG

This specific tax is to fund social care. Tax the people who use it. Pensioners can afford the tax, working people can't. Raising £20bn from over 65s would be easy and it's not as though they can easily leave the country to a lower tax jurisdiction. Again, 16% of pensioners are in the higher tax bracket. They pay at least £3000 less in tax than someone who works and they receive at least £9k in benefits. That 16% can cover the whole £20bn and more. It's time to make taxes fair.

Trouble is that wealthy retired people are the core demographic for Johnson's Conservatives (and to be fair, they always have been in modern times). And less wealthy but comfortable retired homeowners in the north are the next ones on Johnson's list. That's where his majority is from.

Anyone else in the great Conservative tradition is like the wife who has been dumped for a fruiter model.

Except there's no alimony this time.

Exactly, home owning over 65s are the Tories core vote and those in the 45-65 bracket who own property and are waiting for an inheritance are who won the Tories the last general election.

Even in 2019 Labour won under 44s so they can largely be ignored as far as the Tories are concerned, most of the under 40s are not voting Tory

Gives me a convenient opportunity to post this graphic from 2019, showing the results of research into where the two main parties derive their support:



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-47909281

As you say, the Tory core vote is (1) old people, who are also largely homeowners, and (2) middle class, middle aged or near pensionable people, who are mostly homeowners or mortgage payers, and a great many of whom are also expectant heirs.

Based on this, there are three things that a Johnson (i.e. populist) Tory Government ought not to do:

*Make pensioners pay for anything
*Try to put new taxes on property
*Raise inheritance tax

If they do actually elect to deprive oldies of the bumper state pension rise they have coming next Spring then it will be a very brave decision - in the Sir Humphrey sense of the word.

And the correct one (I am a pensioner so would be affected)

Good, you should pay. Or do you think I shouldn't pay my tuition fees?

Tuition fees were a labour policy and agreed by the lib dems

My granddaughter is starting a five year course at Leeds next week and the fees are eye watering

And when you say I should pay, you do know it is the amount of increase being argued over here not a reduction in the state pension

Stop dodging the question. I opposed tuition fees.

Should I pay my own tuition fees or not?

MaxPB said:

Philip_Thompson said:

pigeon said:

Philip_Thompson said:

pigeon said:

HYUFD said:

Stuartinromford said:

MaxPB said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

MaxPB said:

Aslan said:

MaxPB said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

MaxPB said:

Real Tories all coming out against the idiot NI rise. Boris has lost it, Rishi needs to push back and axe it completely now. Press the advantage.

As I understand it Rishi wanted a higher increase

No, Rishi wanted no tax rise, Boris and Sajid wanted 2% on employees and 2% on employers, he forced them down to 1% on each. If he pushes again now he can get rid of it completely.

Rishi is in the right. We need to pay down the debt, not leave it for future generations to pay off. Anti-tax zealotry is out of control on the backbenches.

Since when is this proposed tax rise going to pay down the debt?! It's tax and spend, the state is deciding to take a larger proportion of the economy leaving less for everyone else. The solution is and has always been to grow the bloody economy. The tax burden is already too high.

With the best will in the world tax rises are coming no matter who is HMG

This specific tax is to fund social care. Tax the people who use it. Pensioners can afford the tax, working people can't. Raising £20bn from over 65s would be easy and it's not as though they can easily leave the country to a lower tax jurisdiction. Again, 16% of pensioners are in the higher tax bracket. They pay at least £3000 less in tax than someone who works and they receive at least £9k in benefits. That 16% can cover the whole £20bn and more. It's time to make taxes fair.

Trouble is that wealthy retired people are the core demographic for Johnson's Conservatives (and to be fair, they always have been in modern times). And less wealthy but comfortable retired homeowners in the north are the next ones on Johnson's list. That's where his majority is from.

Anyone else in the great Conservative tradition is like the wife who has been dumped for a fruiter model.

Except there's no alimony this time.

Exactly, home owning over 65s are the Tories core vote and those in the 45-65 bracket who own property and are waiting for an inheritance are who won the Tories the last general election.

Even in 2019 Labour won under 44s so they can largely be ignored as far as the Tories are concerned, most of the under 40s are not voting Tory

Gives me a convenient opportunity to post this graphic from 2019, showing the results of research into where the two main parties derive their support:



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-47909281

As you say, the Tory core vote is (1) old people, who are also largely homeowners, and (2) middle class, middle aged or near pensionable people, who are mostly homeowners or mortgage payers, and a great many of whom are also expectant heirs.

Based on this, there are three things that a Johnson (i.e. populist) Tory Government ought not to do:

*Make pensioners pay for anything
*Try to put new taxes on property
*Raise inheritance tax

If they do actually elect to deprive oldies of the bumper state pension rise they have coming next Spring then it will be a very brave decision - in the Sir Humphrey sense of the word.

Its worth noting that research is from when Theresa May was in charge and matches the 2017 election, which is why the Tories lost their majority.

In the 2019 election the Tory/Labour crossover age dropped down to 39, which accounted for the Tory landslide majority.

Taking a dump on working voters will take us back to the dark days of Theresa May.

Indeed, although I doubt that the pattern of party support changed that radically at the last GE. The point holds: the Tories are in hock to the old and have little incentive to do anything to favour the young.

The pattern of party support did change radically at the last GE. The crossover age of voting Tory instead of Labour dropped all the way from 55 to 39. Hence why the Tories won an eighty seat majority instead of no overall majority.

I think this tax will shift the voting age for Tories to well above 55, maybe approaching 60. I could easily see Labour get to 300+ seats if they oppose this and do it with some level of cunning.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Bunch of sleazy parasites.

SUNDAY TIMES EXCLUSIVE

Prince Charles’s top aide, Michael Fawcett, has stepped down over evidence he "fixed" a CBE for Saudi tycoon who gave £1.5m to palace charity

Prince himself gave Saudi the honour in private ceremony after series of secret meetings

https://twitter.com/Gabriel_Pogrund/status/1434229479019327489

Philip_Thompson said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

pigeon said:

HYUFD said:

Stuartinromford said:

MaxPB said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

MaxPB said:

Aslan said:

MaxPB said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

MaxPB said:

Real Tories all coming out against the idiot NI rise. Boris has lost it, Rishi needs to push back and axe it completely now. Press the advantage.

As I understand it Rishi wanted a higher increase

No, Rishi wanted no tax rise, Boris and Sajid wanted 2% on employees and 2% on employers, he forced them down to 1% on each. If he pushes again now he can get rid of it completely.

Rishi is in the right. We need to pay down the debt, not leave it for future generations to pay off. Anti-tax zealotry is out of control on the backbenches.

Since when is this proposed tax rise going to pay down the debt?! It's tax and spend, the state is deciding to take a larger proportion of the economy leaving less for everyone else. The solution is and has always been to grow the bloody economy. The tax burden is already too high.

With the best will in the world tax rises are coming no matter who is HMG

This specific tax is to fund social care. Tax the people who use it. Pensioners can afford the tax, working people can't. Raising £20bn from over 65s would be easy and it's not as though they can easily leave the country to a lower tax jurisdiction. Again, 16% of pensioners are in the higher tax bracket. They pay at least £3000 less in tax than someone who works and they receive at least £9k in benefits. That 16% can cover the whole £20bn and more. It's time to make taxes fair.

Trouble is that wealthy retired people are the core demographic for Johnson's Conservatives (and to be fair, they always have been in modern times). And less wealthy but comfortable retired homeowners in the north are the next ones on Johnson's list. That's where his majority is from.

Anyone else in the great Conservative tradition is like the wife who has been dumped for a fruiter model.

Except there's no alimony this time.

Exactly, home owning over 65s are the Tories core vote and those in the 45-65 bracket who own property and are waiting for an inheritance are who won the Tories the last general election.

Even in 2019 Labour won under 44s so they can largely be ignored as far as the Tories are concerned, most of the under 40s are not voting Tory

Gives me a convenient opportunity to post this graphic from 2019, showing the results of research into where the two main parties derive their support:



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-47909281

As you say, the Tory core vote is (1) old people, who are also largely homeowners, and (2) middle class, middle aged or near pensionable people, who are mostly homeowners or mortgage payers, and a great many of whom are also expectant heirs.

Based on this, there are three things that a Johnson (i.e. populist) Tory Government ought not to do:

*Make pensioners pay for anything
*Try to put new taxes on property
*Raise inheritance tax

If they do actually elect to deprive oldies of the bumper state pension rise they have coming next Spring then it will be a very brave decision - in the Sir Humphrey sense of the word.

And the correct one (I am a pensioner so would be affected)

Good, you should pay. Or do you think I shouldn't pay my tuition fees?

Tuition fees were a labour policy and agreed by the lib dems

My granddaughter is starting a five year course at Leeds next week and the fees are eye watering

And when you say I should pay, you do know it is the amount of increase being argued over here not a reduction in the state pension

People continue to look at this in total wrong way. Very few people will ever pay those fees, in reality for most people it is a capped graduate tax, which is basically what would happen if there weren't any fees.

Why should there be a capped graduate tax?

Why should eg a successful electrician earning six figure salaries have a lifetime lower tax rate than eg a teacher or other graduate with a lower income who happens to have a degree?

FrancisUrquhart said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

pigeon said:

HYUFD said:

Stuartinromford said:

MaxPB said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

MaxPB said:

Aslan said:

MaxPB said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

MaxPB said:

Real Tories all coming out against the idiot NI rise. Boris has lost it, Rishi needs to push back and axe it completely now. Press the advantage.

As I understand it Rishi wanted a higher increase

No, Rishi wanted no tax rise, Boris and Sajid wanted 2% on employees and 2% on employers, he forced them down to 1% on each. If he pushes again now he can get rid of it completely.

Rishi is in the right. We need to pay down the debt, not leave it for future generations to pay off. Anti-tax zealotry is out of control on the backbenches.

Since when is this proposed tax rise going to pay down the debt?! It's tax and spend, the state is deciding to take a larger proportion of the economy leaving less for everyone else. The solution is and has always been to grow the bloody economy. The tax burden is already too high.

With the best will in the world tax rises are coming no matter who is HMG

This specific tax is to fund social care. Tax the people who use it. Pensioners can afford the tax, working people can't. Raising £20bn from over 65s would be easy and it's not as though they can easily leave the country to a lower tax jurisdiction. Again, 16% of pensioners are in the higher tax bracket. They pay at least £3000 less in tax than someone who works and they receive at least £9k in benefits. That 16% can cover the whole £20bn and more. It's time to make taxes fair.

Trouble is that wealthy retired people are the core demographic for Johnson's Conservatives (and to be fair, they always have been in modern times). And less wealthy but comfortable retired homeowners in the north are the next ones on Johnson's list. That's where his majority is from.

Anyone else in the great Conservative tradition is like the wife who has been dumped for a fruiter model.

Except there's no alimony this time.

Exactly, home owning over 65s are the Tories core vote and those in the 45-65 bracket who own property and are waiting for an inheritance are who won the Tories the last general election.

Even in 2019 Labour won under 44s so they can largely be ignored as far as the Tories are concerned, most of the under 40s are not voting Tory

Gives me a convenient opportunity to post this graphic from 2019, showing the results of research into where the two main parties derive their support:



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-47909281

As you say, the Tory core vote is (1) old people, who are also largely homeowners, and (2) middle class, middle aged or near pensionable people, who are mostly homeowners or mortgage payers, and a great many of whom are also expectant heirs.

Based on this, there are three things that a Johnson (i.e. populist) Tory Government ought not to do:

*Make pensioners pay for anything
*Try to put new taxes on property
*Raise inheritance tax

If they do actually elect to deprive oldies of the bumper state pension rise they have coming next Spring then it will be a very brave decision - in the Sir Humphrey sense of the word.

And the correct one (I am a pensioner so would be affected)

Good, you should pay. Or do you think I shouldn't pay my tuition fees?

Tuition fees were a labour policy and agreed by the lib dems

My granddaughter is starting a five year course at Leeds next week and the fees are eye watering

And when you say I should pay, you do know it is the amount of increase being argued over here not a reduction in the state pension

People continue to look at this in total wrong way. Very few people will ever pay those fees, in reality for most people it is a capped graduate tax, which is basically what would happen if there weren't any fees.

All that has happened is a migration from all of us paying for a small number of people to go to uni, to those that go to uni paying an additional tax for doing so.

The fees are that the universities are charging basically what the average cost of education, rather than the state paying or in the early 2000s a combination of the state and the individual.

Charles said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Bunch of sleazy parasites.

SUNDAY TIMES EXCLUSIVE

Prince Charles’s top aide, Michael Fawcett, has stepped down over evidence he "fixed" a CBE for Saudi tycoon who gave £1.5m to palace charity

Prince himself gave Saudi the honour in private ceremony after series of secret meetings

https://twitter.com/Gabriel_Pogrund/status/1434229479019327489

FWIW 10 years ago my Dad told me it was very easy to get an invitation to the Palace if I was willing to pay (it was when he handed over the chairmanship of his foundation to me)

Big_G_NorthWales said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

pigeon said:

HYUFD said:

Stuartinromford said:

MaxPB said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

MaxPB said:

Aslan said:

MaxPB said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

MaxPB said:

Real Tories all coming out against the idiot NI rise. Boris has lost it, Rishi needs to push back and axe it completely now. Press the advantage.

As I understand it Rishi wanted a higher increase

No, Rishi wanted no tax rise, Boris and Sajid wanted 2% on employees and 2% on employers, he forced them down to 1% on each. If he pushes again now he can get rid of it completely.

Rishi is in the right. We need to pay down the debt, not leave it for future generations to pay off. Anti-tax zealotry is out of control on the backbenches.

Since when is this proposed tax rise going to pay down the debt?! It's tax and spend, the state is deciding to take a larger proportion of the economy leaving less for everyone else. The solution is and has always been to grow the bloody economy. The tax burden is already too high.

With the best will in the world tax rises are coming no matter who is HMG

This specific tax is to fund social care. Tax the people who use it. Pensioners can afford the tax, working people can't. Raising £20bn from over 65s would be easy and it's not as though they can easily leave the country to a lower tax jurisdiction. Again, 16% of pensioners are in the higher tax bracket. They pay at least £3000 less in tax than someone who works and they receive at least £9k in benefits. That 16% can cover the whole £20bn and more. It's time to make taxes fair.

Trouble is that wealthy retired people are the core demographic for Johnson's Conservatives (and to be fair, they always have been in modern times). And less wealthy but comfortable retired homeowners in the north are the next ones on Johnson's list. That's where his majority is from.

Anyone else in the great Conservative tradition is like the wife who has been dumped for a fruiter model.

Except there's no alimony this time.

Exactly, home owning over 65s are the Tories core vote and those in the 45-65 bracket who own property and are waiting for an inheritance are who won the Tories the last general election.

Even in 2019 Labour won under 44s so they can largely be ignored as far as the Tories are concerned, most of the under 40s are not voting Tory

Gives me a convenient opportunity to post this graphic from 2019, showing the results of research into where the two main parties derive their support:



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-47909281

As you say, the Tory core vote is (1) old people, who are also largely homeowners, and (2) middle class, middle aged or near pensionable people, who are mostly homeowners or mortgage payers, and a great many of whom are also expectant heirs.

Based on this, there are three things that a Johnson (i.e. populist) Tory Government ought not to do:

*Make pensioners pay for anything
*Try to put new taxes on property
*Raise inheritance tax

If they do actually elect to deprive oldies of the bumper state pension rise they have coming next Spring then it will be a very brave decision - in the Sir Humphrey sense of the word.

And the correct one (I am a pensioner so would be affected)

Good, you should pay. Or do you think I shouldn't pay my tuition fees?

Tuition fees were a labour policy and agreed by the lib dems

My granddaughter is starting a five year course at Leeds next week and the fees are eye watering

And when you say I should pay, you do know it is the amount of increase being argued over here not a reduction in the state pension

People continue to look at this in total wrong way. Very few people will ever pay those fees, in reality for most people it is a capped graduate tax, which is basically what would happen if there weren't any fees.

All that has happened is a migration from all of us paying for a small number of people to go to uni, to those that go to uni paying an additional tax for doing so.

The fees are that the universities are charging basically what the average cost of education, rather than the state paying or in the early 2000s a combination of the state and the individual.

Actually my son in law has explained the fees and charges and it seems clear most of these fees will never be repaid

Benpointer said:

Foxy said:

Benpointer said:

Aslan said:

Benpointer said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MaxPB said:

Real Tories all coming out against the idiot NI rise. Boris has lost it, Rishi needs to push back and axe it completely now. Press the advantage.

Low taxes and grow the economy. We should be set for an economic boom now which will transform the budget for the better anyway. Strangling that at birth with taxes is idiotic.

EDIT: Same answer applies to Benpointer just above.

"Low taxes and grow the economy" sounds great but how exactly do you think low taxes (and presumably the consequent public spending cuts) will grow the economy?

And of course even if we cut taxes and the economy did grow faster, the deficit would still be wider overall and they would use the situation as a reason to cut taxes again. Soon you end up like the clusterfuck in Kansas. It is zealotry, uninformed by real world evidence. They talk about the Laffer curve, but pretend there isn't a left hand side of it.

Ah the fabled Laffer curve - a curve with no formula, no coordinates, no data - about as real as a rainbow with a pot of gold at the end.

I think once tax rates hit 50% there is a major disincentive. Certainly, I stopped flogging myself at that point.

(Note that while nominal rates were higher in the decades before, there were many more in the way of deductions, so the effective rates were lower in many cases).

Innovators and entrepreneurs are always going to innovate and start new businesses regardless of the tax rates. Because what's their alternative? It's not in their nature to sit back and drift.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

pigeon said:

HYUFD said:

Stuartinromford said:

MaxPB said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

MaxPB said:

Aslan said:

MaxPB said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

MaxPB said:

Real Tories all coming out against the idiot NI rise. Boris has lost it, Rishi needs to push back and axe it completely now. Press the advantage.

As I understand it Rishi wanted a higher increase

No, Rishi wanted no tax rise, Boris and Sajid wanted 2% on employees and 2% on employers, he forced them down to 1% on each. If he pushes again now he can get rid of it completely.

Rishi is in the right. We need to pay down the debt, not leave it for future generations to pay off. Anti-tax zealotry is out of control on the backbenches.

Since when is this proposed tax rise going to pay down the debt?! It's tax and spend, the state is deciding to take a larger proportion of the economy leaving less for everyone else. The solution is and has always been to grow the bloody economy. The tax burden is already too high.

With the best will in the world tax rises are coming no matter who is HMG

This specific tax is to fund social care. Tax the people who use it. Pensioners can afford the tax, working people can't. Raising £20bn from over 65s would be easy and it's not as though they can easily leave the country to a lower tax jurisdiction. Again, 16% of pensioners are in the higher tax bracket. They pay at least £3000 less in tax than someone who works and they receive at least £9k in benefits. That 16% can cover the whole £20bn and more. It's time to make taxes fair.

Trouble is that wealthy retired people are the core demographic for Johnson's Conservatives (and to be fair, they always have been in modern times). And less wealthy but comfortable retired homeowners in the north are the next ones on Johnson's list. That's where his majority is from.

Anyone else in the great Conservative tradition is like the wife who has been dumped for a fruiter model.

Except there's no alimony this time.

Exactly, home owning over 65s are the Tories core vote and those in the 45-65 bracket who own property and are waiting for an inheritance are who won the Tories the last general election.

Even in 2019 Labour won under 44s so they can largely be ignored as far as the Tories are concerned, most of the under 40s are not voting Tory

Gives me a convenient opportunity to post this graphic from 2019, showing the results of research into where the two main parties derive their support:



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-47909281

As you say, the Tory core vote is (1) old people, who are also largely homeowners, and (2) middle class, middle aged or near pensionable people, who are mostly homeowners or mortgage payers, and a great many of whom are also expectant heirs.

Based on this, there are three things that a Johnson (i.e. populist) Tory Government ought not to do:

*Make pensioners pay for anything
*Try to put new taxes on property
*Raise inheritance tax

If they do actually elect to deprive oldies of the bumper state pension rise they have coming next Spring then it will be a very brave decision - in the Sir Humphrey sense of the word.

And the correct one (I am a pensioner so would be affected)

Good, you should pay. Or do you think I shouldn't pay my tuition fees?

Tuition fees were a labour policy and agreed by the lib dems

My granddaughter is starting a five year course at Leeds next week and the fees are eye watering

And when you say I should pay, you do know it is the amount of increase being argued over here not a reduction in the state pension

Stop dodging the question. I opposed tuition fees.

Should I pay my own tuition fees or not?

Charles said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

One of Prince Charles’s closest aides quit last night after claims that he had fixed an honour for a Saudi tycoon who donated more than £1.5 million to royal charities.

Michael Fawcett, the prince’s former valet, stepped down temporarily as chief executive of the Prince’s Foundation after The Sunday Times provided evidence of Charles’s dealings with the businessman.

Mahfouz Marei Mubarak bin Mahfouz paid tens of thousands of pounds to fixers with links to the prince who had told him they could secure the honour.

Charles, 72, personally awarded Mahfouz, 51, his CBE at a private ceremony at Buckingham Palace in November 2016. The event was not announced in the Court Circular, the official list of royal engagements.

Aides close to the prince and senior staff in his charities had helped the paid fixers to secure the CBE after Mahfouz donated large sums to restoration projects of particular interest to Charles, including Dumfries House and the Castle of Mey.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/prince-charles-aides-fixed-cbe-for-saudi-tycoon-who-gave-1-5m-0b5cb7qf2

I think I will have to ask the police to investigate this.

Why? Some old houses got restored and some fat bloke gets to wear a bit of ribbon on his chest. Net net it’s good

Charles said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

One of Prince Charles’s closest aides quit last night after claims that he had fixed an honour for a Saudi tycoon who donated more than £1.5 million to royal charities.

Michael Fawcett, the prince’s former valet, stepped down temporarily as chief executive of the Prince’s Foundation after The Sunday Times provided evidence of Charles’s dealings with the businessman.

Mahfouz Marei Mubarak bin Mahfouz paid tens of thousands of pounds to fixers with links to the prince who had told him they could secure the honour.

Charles, 72, personally awarded Mahfouz, 51, his CBE at a private ceremony at Buckingham Palace in November 2016. The event was not announced in the Court Circular, the official list of royal engagements.

Aides close to the prince and senior staff in his charities had helped the paid fixers to secure the CBE after Mahfouz donated large sums to restoration projects of particular interest to Charles, including Dumfries House and the Castle of Mey.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/prince-charles-aides-fixed-cbe-for-saudi-tycoon-who-gave-1-5m-0b5cb7qf2

I think I will have to ask the police to investigate this.

Why? Some old houses got restored and some fat bloke gets to wear a bit of ribbon on his chest. Net net it’s good

Philip_Thompson said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

pigeon said:

HYUFD said:

Stuartinromford said:

MaxPB said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

MaxPB said:

Aslan said:

MaxPB said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

MaxPB said:

Real Tories all coming out against the idiot NI rise. Boris has lost it, Rishi needs to push back and axe it completely now. Press the advantage.

As I understand it Rishi wanted a higher increase

No, Rishi wanted no tax rise, Boris and Sajid wanted 2% on employees and 2% on employers, he forced them down to 1% on each. If he pushes again now he can get rid of it completely.

Rishi is in the right. We need to pay down the debt, not leave it for future generations to pay off. Anti-tax zealotry is out of control on the backbenches.

Since when is this proposed tax rise going to pay down the debt?! It's tax and spend, the state is deciding to take a larger proportion of the economy leaving less for everyone else. The solution is and has always been to grow the bloody economy. The tax burden is already too high.

With the best will in the world tax rises are coming no matter who is HMG

This specific tax is to fund social care. Tax the people who use it. Pensioners can afford the tax, working people can't. Raising £20bn from over 65s would be easy and it's not as though they can easily leave the country to a lower tax jurisdiction. Again, 16% of pensioners are in the higher tax bracket. They pay at least £3000 less in tax than someone who works and they receive at least £9k in benefits. That 16% can cover the whole £20bn and more. It's time to make taxes fair.

Trouble is that wealthy retired people are the core demographic for Johnson's Conservatives (and to be fair, they always have been in modern times). And less wealthy but comfortable retired homeowners in the north are the next ones on Johnson's list. That's where his majority is from.

Anyone else in the great Conservative tradition is like the wife who has been dumped for a fruiter model.

Except there's no alimony this time.

Exactly, home owning over 65s are the Tories core vote and those in the 45-65 bracket who own property and are waiting for an inheritance are who won the Tories the last general election.

Even in 2019 Labour won under 44s so they can largely be ignored as far as the Tories are concerned, most of the under 40s are not voting Tory

Gives me a convenient opportunity to post this graphic from 2019, showing the results of research into where the two main parties derive their support:



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-47909281

As you say, the Tory core vote is (1) old people, who are also largely homeowners, and (2) middle class, middle aged or near pensionable people, who are mostly homeowners or mortgage payers, and a great many of whom are also expectant heirs.

Based on this, there are three things that a Johnson (i.e. populist) Tory Government ought not to do:

*Make pensioners pay for anything
*Try to put new taxes on property
*Raise inheritance tax

If they do actually elect to deprive oldies of the bumper state pension rise they have coming next Spring then it will be a very brave decision - in the Sir Humphrey sense of the word.

And the correct one (I am a pensioner so would be affected)

Good, you should pay. Or do you think I shouldn't pay my tuition fees?

Tuition fees were a labour policy and agreed by the lib dems

My granddaughter is starting a five year course at Leeds next week and the fees are eye watering

And when you say I should pay, you do know it is the amount of increase being argued over here not a reduction in the state pension

People continue to look at this in total wrong way. Very few people will ever pay those fees, in reality for most people it is a capped graduate tax, which is basically what would happen if there weren't any fees.

Why should there be a capped graduate tax?

Why should eg a successful electrician earning six figure salaries have a lifetime lower tax rate than eg a teacher or other graduate with a lower income who happens to have a degree?

That's what I meant, the only difference would be a specific graduate tax, that wouldn't be capped. One downside of that is if an individual leaves the country, they won't owe anything. That might be motivation for some successful people to move.

I'm saying why would there have to be a graduate tax?

If you're going to do Education via taxation, then why should only graduates pay the tax? Taxation should be applicable to all.

Anabobazina said:

Tax rises at this stage in the cycle are pure stupidity. It’s not a left/right issue - it’s basic economics that you don’t check a recovery by imposing tax increases.

dixiedean said:

HYUFD said:

MaxPB said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Elderly: the young should pay their way and pay their tuition fees

Also elderly: we will not pay for our bus passes, TfL travel or social care!

Also elderly: we all had our own houses at your age by working hard! But give us all your money for rent.

Actually many of the elderly help their grandchildren with deposits for houses now and also leave them and their children a hefty inheritance

The elderly don't leave their children an inheritance. They leave it to their elderly offspring.

Benpointer said:

Anabobazina said:

Tax rises at this stage in the cycle are pure stupidity. It’s not a left/right issue - it’s basic economics that you don’t check a recovery by imposing tax increases.

Wealth tax would not check a recovery. Not would a big hike in IHT.

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

pigeon said:

HYUFD said:

Stuartinromford said:

MaxPB said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

MaxPB said:

Aslan said:

MaxPB said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

MaxPB said:

Real Tories all coming out against the idiot NI rise. Boris has lost it, Rishi needs to push back and axe it completely now. Press the advantage.

As I understand it Rishi wanted a higher increase

No, Rishi wanted no tax rise, Boris and Sajid wanted 2% on employees and 2% on employers, he forced them down to 1% on each. If he pushes again now he can get rid of it completely.

Rishi is in the right. We need to pay down the debt, not leave it for future generations to pay off. Anti-tax zealotry is out of control on the backbenches.

Since when is this proposed tax rise going to pay down the debt?! It's tax and spend, the state is deciding to take a larger proportion of the economy leaving less for everyone else. The solution is and has always been to grow the bloody economy. The tax burden is already too high.

With the best will in the world tax rises are coming no matter who is HMG

This specific tax is to fund social care. Tax the people who use it. Pensioners can afford the tax, working people can't. Raising £20bn from over 65s would be easy and it's not as though they can easily leave the country to a lower tax jurisdiction. Again, 16% of pensioners are in the higher tax bracket. They pay at least £3000 less in tax than someone who works and they receive at least £9k in benefits. That 16% can cover the whole £20bn and more. It's time to make taxes fair.

Trouble is that wealthy retired people are the core demographic for Johnson's Conservatives (and to be fair, they always have been in modern times). And less wealthy but comfortable retired homeowners in the north are the next ones on Johnson's list. That's where his majority is from.

Anyone else in the great Conservative tradition is like the wife who has been dumped for a fruiter model.

Except there's no alimony this time.

Exactly, home owning over 65s are the Tories core vote and those in the 45-65 bracket who own property and are waiting for an inheritance are who won the Tories the last general election.

Even in 2019 Labour won under 44s so they can largely be ignored as far as the Tories are concerned, most of the under 40s are not voting Tory

Gives me a convenient opportunity to post this graphic from 2019, showing the results of research into where the two main parties derive their support:



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-47909281

As you say, the Tory core vote is (1) old people, who are also largely homeowners, and (2) middle class, middle aged or near pensionable people, who are mostly homeowners or mortgage payers, and a great many of whom are also expectant heirs.

Based on this, there are three things that a Johnson (i.e. populist) Tory Government ought not to do:

*Make pensioners pay for anything
*Try to put new taxes on property
*Raise inheritance tax

If they do actually elect to deprive oldies of the bumper state pension rise they have coming next Spring then it will be a very brave decision - in the Sir Humphrey sense of the word.

Its worth noting that research is from when Theresa May was in charge and matches the 2017 election, which is why the Tories lost their majority.

In the 2019 election the Tory/Labour crossover age dropped down to 39, which accounted for the Tory landslide majority.

Taking a dump on working voters will take us back to the dark days of Theresa May.

Not entirely true.

According to Mori at the 2019 election Labour won 18-24s 62% to 19%, 25-34s 51% to 27% and 35-44s 39% to 36%.

It was over 45s who won the election for Boris exactly as they did for May, the Tories won 45-54s 46% to 28%, 55-64s 49%-27% and over 65s by a whopping 64% to 17%.
https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2019-election

By contrast in 2010 Cameron's Tories beat Brown's Labour in every age bracket over 25, with Labour only ahead with 18-24s.

Yet Cameron only won over 65s by 44% to 31% for Brown Labour.

https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2010

Therefore post Brexit the Tory vote is heavily dependent on Leave voting pensioners and middle aged owner occupiers looking for an inheritance, Remain voters under 45 left them in 2017 and even in 2019 did not return

Labour winning 35-44 year olds marginally is entirely compatible with a crossover age of 39.

In 2010 the crossover age was 25, in 2015 the crossover age was 35 in 2017 47, in 2019 39.

The under 40 Tory vote was lost with Brexit, however Brexit massively increased the over 55 Tory vote, it is preserving the over 45 vote that will re elect Boris

Benpointer said:

Charles said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

One of Prince Charles’s closest aides quit last night after claims that he had fixed an honour for a Saudi tycoon who donated more than £1.5 million to royal charities.

Michael Fawcett, the prince’s former valet, stepped down temporarily as chief executive of the Prince’s Foundation after The Sunday Times provided evidence of Charles’s dealings with the businessman.

Mahfouz Marei Mubarak bin Mahfouz paid tens of thousands of pounds to fixers with links to the prince who had told him they could secure the honour.

Charles, 72, personally awarded Mahfouz, 51, his CBE at a private ceremony at Buckingham Palace in November 2016. The event was not announced in the Court Circular, the official list of royal engagements.

Aides close to the prince and senior staff in his charities had helped the paid fixers to secure the CBE after Mahfouz donated large sums to restoration projects of particular interest to Charles, including Dumfries House and the Castle of Mey.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/prince-charles-aides-fixed-cbe-for-saudi-tycoon-who-gave-1-5m-0b5cb7qf2

I think I will have to ask the police to investigate this.

Why? Some old houses got restored and some fat bloke gets to wear a bit of ribbon on his chest. Net net it’s good

I assume you are being tongue in cheek here @Charles.

If not, can you not see how corrupt this kind of thing looks to normal people?

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

pigeon said:

HYUFD said:

Stuartinromford said:

MaxPB said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

MaxPB said:

Aslan said:

MaxPB said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

MaxPB said:

Real Tories all coming out against the idiot NI rise. Boris has lost it, Rishi needs to push back and axe it completely now. Press the advantage.

As I understand it Rishi wanted a higher increase

No, Rishi wanted no tax rise, Boris and Sajid wanted 2% on employees and 2% on employers, he forced them down to 1% on each. If he pushes again now he can get rid of it completely.

Rishi is in the right. We need to pay down the debt, not leave it for future generations to pay off. Anti-tax zealotry is out of control on the backbenches.

Since when is this proposed tax rise going to pay down the debt?! It's tax and spend, the state is deciding to take a larger proportion of the economy leaving less for everyone else. The solution is and has always been to grow the bloody economy. The tax burden is already too high.

With the best will in the world tax rises are coming no matter who is HMG

This specific tax is to fund social care. Tax the people who use it. Pensioners can afford the tax, working people can't. Raising £20bn from over 65s would be easy and it's not as though they can easily leave the country to a lower tax jurisdiction. Again, 16% of pensioners are in the higher tax bracket. They pay at least £3000 less in tax than someone who works and they receive at least £9k in benefits. That 16% can cover the whole £20bn and more. It's time to make taxes fair.

Trouble is that wealthy retired people are the core demographic for Johnson's Conservatives (and to be fair, they always have been in modern times). And less wealthy but comfortable retired homeowners in the north are the next ones on Johnson's list. That's where his majority is from.

Anyone else in the great Conservative tradition is like the wife who has been dumped for a fruiter model.

Except there's no alimony this time.

Exactly, home owning over 65s are the Tories core vote and those in the 45-65 bracket who own property and are waiting for an inheritance are who won the Tories the last general election.

Even in 2019 Labour won under 44s so they can largely be ignored as far as the Tories are concerned, most of the under 40s are not voting Tory

Gives me a convenient opportunity to post this graphic from 2019, showing the results of research into where the two main parties derive their support:



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-47909281

As you say, the Tory core vote is (1) old people, who are also largely homeowners, and (2) middle class, middle aged or near pensionable people, who are mostly homeowners or mortgage payers, and a great many of whom are also expectant heirs.

Based on this, there are three things that a Johnson (i.e. populist) Tory Government ought not to do:

*Make pensioners pay for anything
*Try to put new taxes on property
*Raise inheritance tax

If they do actually elect to deprive oldies of the bumper state pension rise they have coming next Spring then it will be a very brave decision - in the Sir Humphrey sense of the word.

Its worth noting that research is from when Theresa May was in charge and matches the 2017 election, which is why the Tories lost their majority.

In the 2019 election the Tory/Labour crossover age dropped down to 39, which accounted for the Tory landslide majority.

Taking a dump on working voters will take us back to the dark days of Theresa May.

Not entirely true.

According to Mori at the 2019 election Labour won 18-24s 62% to 19%, 25-34s 51% to 27% and 35-44s 39% to 36%.

It was over 45s who won the election for Boris exactly as they did for May, the Tories won 45-54s 46% to 28%, 55-64s 49%-27% and over 65s by a whopping 64% to 17%.
https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2019-election

By contrast in 2010 Cameron's Tories beat Brown's Labour in every age bracket over 25, with Labour only ahead with 18-24s.

Yet Cameron only won over 65s by 44% to 31% for Brown Labour.

https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2010

Therefore post Brexit the Tory vote is heavily dependent on Leave voting pensioners and middle aged owner occupiers looking for an inheritance, Remain voters under 45 left them in 2017 and even in 2019 did not return

Labour winning 35-44 year olds marginally is entirely compatible with a crossover age of 39.

In 2010 the crossover age was 25, in 2015 the crossover age was 35 in 2017 47, in 2019 39.

The under 40 Tory vote was lost with Brexit, however Brexit massively increased the over 55 Tory vote, it is preserving the over 45 vote that will re elect Boris

Its overly-simplistic to assume its all about Brexit.

If it was, the crossover age would have risen between 2017 and 2019, rather than dramatically falling.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

pigeon said:

HYUFD said:

Stuartinromford said:

MaxPB said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

MaxPB said:

Aslan said:

MaxPB said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

MaxPB said:

Real Tories all coming out against the idiot NI rise. Boris has lost it, Rishi needs to push back and axe it completely now. Press the advantage.

As I understand it Rishi wanted a higher increase

No, Rishi wanted no tax rise, Boris and Sajid wanted 2% on employees and 2% on employers, he forced them down to 1% on each. If he pushes again now he can get rid of it completely.

Rishi is in the right. We need to pay down the debt, not leave it for future generations to pay off. Anti-tax zealotry is out of control on the backbenches.

Since when is this proposed tax rise going to pay down the debt?! It's tax and spend, the state is deciding to take a larger proportion of the economy leaving less for everyone else. The solution is and has always been to grow the bloody economy. The tax burden is already too high.

With the best will in the world tax rises are coming no matter who is HMG

This specific tax is to fund social care. Tax the people who use it. Pensioners can afford the tax, working people can't. Raising £20bn from over 65s would be easy and it's not as though they can easily leave the country to a lower tax jurisdiction. Again, 16% of pensioners are in the higher tax bracket. They pay at least £3000 less in tax than someone who works and they receive at least £9k in benefits. That 16% can cover the whole £20bn and more. It's time to make taxes fair.

Trouble is that wealthy retired people are the core demographic for Johnson's Conservatives (and to be fair, they always have been in modern times). And less wealthy but comfortable retired homeowners in the north are the next ones on Johnson's list. That's where his majority is from.

Anyone else in the great Conservative tradition is like the wife who has been dumped for a fruiter model.

Except there's no alimony this time.

Exactly, home owning over 65s are the Tories core vote and those in the 45-65 bracket who own property and are waiting for an inheritance are who won the Tories the last general election.

Even in 2019 Labour won under 44s so they can largely be ignored as far as the Tories are concerned, most of the under 40s are not voting Tory

Gives me a convenient opportunity to post this graphic from 2019, showing the results of research into where the two main parties derive their support:



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-47909281

As you say, the Tory core vote is (1) old people, who are also largely homeowners, and (2) middle class, middle aged or near pensionable people, who are mostly homeowners or mortgage payers, and a great many of whom are also expectant heirs.

Based on this, there are three things that a Johnson (i.e. populist) Tory Government ought not to do:

*Make pensioners pay for anything
*Try to put new taxes on property
*Raise inheritance tax

If they do actually elect to deprive oldies of the bumper state pension rise they have coming next Spring then it will be a very brave decision - in the Sir Humphrey sense of the word.

And the correct one (I am a pensioner so would be affected)

Good, you should pay. Or do you think I shouldn't pay my tuition fees?

Tuition fees were a labour policy and agreed by the lib dems

My granddaughter is starting a five year course at Leeds next week and the fees are eye watering

And when you say I should pay, you do know it is the amount of increase being argued over here not a reduction in the state pension

Stop dodging the question. I opposed tuition fees.

Should I pay my own tuition fees or not?

I cannot speak for you but my granddaughter will

Not will she, should she, as in, should she have to pay fees or should uni be free?

I just want to understand if you believe in fairness or not

I think my comments on £20UC uplift and the abolition of the triple lock demonstrate that I do seek fairness

And of course as has been said the way tuition fees are repaid the vast majority of the fees will not be repaid

And yes universities should be able to charge fees

Then you are a hypocrite. You should pay for your own social care, not the taxpayer.

And I will unless the Welsh government changes the present social care system

They shouldn't be changing the system to anything other than a system which makes you lot pay.

Hurts when the boot is on the other foot doesn't it? Now you know what it's like to be young

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Endillion said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

pigeon said:

HYUFD said:

Stuartinromford said:

MaxPB said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

MaxPB said:

Aslan said:

MaxPB said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

MaxPB said:

Real Tories all coming out against the idiot NI rise. Boris has lost it, Rishi needs to push back and axe it completely now. Press the advantage.

As I understand it Rishi wanted a higher increase

No, Rishi wanted no tax rise, Boris and Sajid wanted 2% on employees and 2% on employers, he forced them down to 1% on each. If he pushes again now he can get rid of it completely.

Rishi is in the right. We need to pay down the debt, not leave it for future generations to pay off. Anti-tax zealotry is out of control on the backbenches.

Since when is this proposed tax rise going to pay down the debt?! It's tax and spend, the state is deciding to take a larger proportion of the economy leaving less for everyone else. The solution is and has always been to grow the bloody economy. The tax burden is already too high.

With the best will in the world tax rises are coming no matter who is HMG

This specific tax is to fund social care. Tax the people who use it. Pensioners can afford the tax, working people can't. Raising £20bn from over 65s would be easy and it's not as though they can easily leave the country to a lower tax jurisdiction. Again, 16% of pensioners are in the higher tax bracket. They pay at least £3000 less in tax than someone who works and they receive at least £9k in benefits. That 16% can cover the whole £20bn and more. It's time to make taxes fair.

Trouble is that wealthy retired people are the core demographic for Johnson's Conservatives (and to be fair, they always have been in modern times). And less wealthy but comfortable retired homeowners in the north are the next ones on Johnson's list. That's where his majority is from.

Anyone else in the great Conservative tradition is like the wife who has been dumped for a fruiter model.

Except there's no alimony this time.

Exactly, home owning over 65s are the Tories core vote and those in the 45-65 bracket who own property and are waiting for an inheritance are who won the Tories the last general election.

Even in 2019 Labour won under 44s so they can largely be ignored as far as the Tories are concerned, most of the under 40s are not voting Tory

Gives me a convenient opportunity to post this graphic from 2019, showing the results of research into where the two main parties derive their support:



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-47909281

As you say, the Tory core vote is (1) old people, who are also largely homeowners, and (2) middle class, middle aged or near pensionable people, who are mostly homeowners or mortgage payers, and a great many of whom are also expectant heirs.

Based on this, there are three things that a Johnson (i.e. populist) Tory Government ought not to do:

*Make pensioners pay for anything
*Try to put new taxes on property
*Raise inheritance tax

If they do actually elect to deprive oldies of the bumper state pension rise they have coming next Spring then it will be a very brave decision - in the Sir Humphrey sense of the word.

And the correct one (I am a pensioner so would be affected)

Good, you should pay. Or do you think I shouldn't pay my tuition fees?

Tuition fees were a labour policy and agreed by the lib dems

My granddaughter is starting a five year course at Leeds next week and the fees are eye watering

And when you say I should pay, you do know it is the amount of increase being argued over here not a reduction in the state pension

Stop dodging the question. I opposed tuition fees.

Should I pay my own tuition fees or not?

Almost no-one pays their own tuition fees. They're paid upfront by the government and you then pay a graduate tax for 30 years after you graduate. Almost no-one will ever actually pay off the debt.

Alright then, should there be a graduate tax if you go to uni, in other words should you have to pay in some form because you chose to go to uni?

If pensioners believe that young people should "pay their way" as I often here, why don't they have to pay their way?

dixiedean said:

HYUFD said:

MaxPB said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Elderly: the young should pay their way and pay their tuition fees

Also elderly: we will not pay for our bus passes, TfL travel or social care!

Also elderly: we all had our own houses at your age by working hard! But give us all your money for rent.

Actually many of the elderly help their grandchildren with deposits for houses now and also leave them and their children a hefty inheritance

The elderly don't leave their children an inheritance. They leave it to their elderly offspring.

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

pigeon said:

HYUFD said:

Stuartinromford said:

MaxPB said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

MaxPB said:

Aslan said:

MaxPB said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

MaxPB said:

Real Tories all coming out against the idiot NI rise. Boris has lost it, Rishi needs to push back and axe it completely now. Press the advantage.

As I understand it Rishi wanted a higher increase

No, Rishi wanted no tax rise, Boris and Sajid wanted 2% on employees and 2% on employers, he forced them down to 1% on each. If he pushes again now he can get rid of it completely.

Rishi is in the right. We need to pay down the debt, not leave it for future generations to pay off. Anti-tax zealotry is out of control on the backbenches.

Since when is this proposed tax rise going to pay down the debt?! It's tax and spend, the state is deciding to take a larger proportion of the economy leaving less for everyone else. The solution is and has always been to grow the bloody economy. The tax burden is already too high.

With the best will in the world tax rises are coming no matter who is HMG

This specific tax is to fund social care. Tax the people who use it. Pensioners can afford the tax, working people can't. Raising £20bn from over 65s would be easy and it's not as though they can easily leave the country to a lower tax jurisdiction. Again, 16% of pensioners are in the higher tax bracket. They pay at least £3000 less in tax than someone who works and they receive at least £9k in benefits. That 16% can cover the whole £20bn and more. It's time to make taxes fair.

Trouble is that wealthy retired people are the core demographic for Johnson's Conservatives (and to be fair, they always have been in modern times). And less wealthy but comfortable retired homeowners in the north are the next ones on Johnson's list. That's where his majority is from.

Anyone else in the great Conservative tradition is like the wife who has been dumped for a fruiter model.

Except there's no alimony this time.

Exactly, home owning over 65s are the Tories core vote and those in the 45-65 bracket who own property and are waiting for an inheritance are who won the Tories the last general election.

Even in 2019 Labour won under 44s so they can largely be ignored as far as the Tories are concerned, most of the under 40s are not voting Tory

Gives me a convenient opportunity to post this graphic from 2019, showing the results of research into where the two main parties derive their support:



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-47909281

As you say, the Tory core vote is (1) old people, who are also largely homeowners, and (2) middle class, middle aged or near pensionable people, who are mostly homeowners or mortgage payers, and a great many of whom are also expectant heirs.

Based on this, there are three things that a Johnson (i.e. populist) Tory Government ought not to do:

*Make pensioners pay for anything
*Try to put new taxes on property
*Raise inheritance tax

If they do actually elect to deprive oldies of the bumper state pension rise they have coming next Spring then it will be a very brave decision - in the Sir Humphrey sense of the word.

Its worth noting that research is from when Theresa May was in charge and matches the 2017 election, which is why the Tories lost their majority.

In the 2019 election the Tory/Labour crossover age dropped down to 39, which accounted for the Tory landslide majority.

Taking a dump on working voters will take us back to the dark days of Theresa May.

Not entirely true.

According to Mori at the 2019 election Labour won 18-24s 62% to 19%, 25-34s 51% to 27% and 35-44s 39% to 36%.

It was over 45s who won the election for Boris exactly as they did for May, the Tories won 45-54s 46% to 28%, 55-64s 49%-27% and over 65s by a whopping 64% to 17%.
https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2019-election

By contrast in 2010 Cameron's Tories beat Brown's Labour in every age bracket over 25, with Labour only ahead with 18-24s.

Yet Cameron only won over 65s by 44% to 31% for Brown Labour.

https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2010

Therefore post Brexit the Tory vote is heavily dependent on Leave voting pensioners and middle aged owner occupiers looking for an inheritance, Remain voters under 45 left them in 2017 and even in 2019 did not return

Labour winning 35-44 year olds marginally is entirely compatible with a crossover age of 39.

In 2010 the crossover age was 25, in 2015 the crossover age was 35 in 2017 47, in 2019 39.

The under 40 Tory vote was lost with Brexit, however Brexit massively increased the over 55 Tory vote, it is preserving the over 45 vote that will re elect Boris

Its overly-simplistic to assume its all about Brexit.

If it was, the crossover age would have risen between 2017 and 2019, rather than dramatically falling.

It didn't dramatically fall, Boris lost 35-44s just as May had, Cameron won 35-44s in 2010 and tied them in 2015 and in 2010 Cameron even won over 25s.

Boris won in 2019 because he won over 45s by even more than May had in 2017, both lost under 45s.

Leon said:

Benpointer said:

Leon said:

Not sure if I Louise’d this last night, but has anyone been watching Nat Geo’s SUPERB docu series on 9/11?

They have found quite extraordinary footage - and stories to go with. Episode 1 was just a work of art

If it continues this good…..

Not seen that - I assume it's subscription, which providers?

The BBC doc 9/11: Inside the President's War Room was pretty good - avail on iPlayer. G W Bush came across quite well, presumably partly because he and his team had a lot of input into it. Good documantary, anyway.

This is on a different level to anything I have seen. The Nat Geo producers were (I believe) given exclusive access to the archives of the 9/11 museum and library, hence the amazing found footage - and so much more

It is stomach-churning in good and bad ways. Stories of true heroism, but scenes of appalling horror. It really is like watching it all over again, the memories flood back. Tears doth flow

One of the most pivotal events in modern human history. I date America's true decline from this moment. So - for me - it really did change the world. Even if it didn't do that, it is one of the most strikingly horrific incidents in human experience - a massive, murderous attack on a huge city at peace with zero warning without any obvious motive, in the most dramatic, cinematic way

At the time the German composer Stockhausen called 9/11 "a work of conceptual art" and he was much vilified for it. But looking back, however distasteful his remark, he had a point. 9/11 affects the human brain like a genius work of art

CatMan said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

CatMan said:

pigeon said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

pigeon said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

I see NFT land has gone even more insane now, people are paying $1000s for short sequences of random words and numbers....

When the merry go round stops, there are going to be some people out of pocket massively....

It's Tulip Mania all over again.

Absolutely.....so just like the gold rush, people selling the shovels made the money....i went and bought a load of the tokens they need for this silly game...

There are quite a lot of people who understand the technology behind NFTs who are going to make a killing out of this. There was a case on the news last week a think about a young boy who, aided with a bit of knowhow from his computer programmer Dad, had made something like £300,000 selling pictures of cartoon whales.

All the "investors" who are still holding these strings of code when the music finally stops may not do quite so well out of it.

Yep, here's the article: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-58343062

I wish I had the knowledge and confidence to get into it. Oh well.

You absolutely don't want to go anywhere near it.

Oh I get it's a massive bubble, but don't you get to make a lot of money if you sell before the bubble bursts?

Stuartinromford said:

MaxPB said:

Philip_Thompson said:

The pattern of party support did change radically at the last GE. The crossover age of voting Tory instead of Labour dropped all the way from 55 to 39. Hence why the Tories won an eighty seat majority instead of no overall majority.

I think this tax will shift the voting age for Tories to well above 55, maybe approaching 60. I could easily see Labour get to 300+ seats if they oppose this and do it with some level of cunning.

Worth remembering that the incredibly steep age profile is a very recent phenomenon. These graphs are from the Mori post-election analyses;

DecrepiterJohnL said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

pigeon said:

HYUFD said:

Stuartinromford said:

MaxPB said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

MaxPB said:

Aslan said:

MaxPB said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

MaxPB said:

Real Tories all coming out against the idiot NI rise. Boris has lost it, Rishi needs to push back and axe it completely now. Press the advantage.

As I understand it Rishi wanted a higher increase

No, Rishi wanted no tax rise, Boris and Sajid wanted 2% on employees and 2% on employers, he forced them down to 1% on each. If he pushes again now he can get rid of it completely.

Rishi is in the right. We need to pay down the debt, not leave it for future generations to pay off. Anti-tax zealotry is out of control on the backbenches.

Since when is this proposed tax rise going to pay down the debt?! It's tax and spend, the state is deciding to take a larger proportion of the economy leaving less for everyone else. The solution is and has always been to grow the bloody economy. The tax burden is already too high.

With the best will in the world tax rises are coming no matter who is HMG

This specific tax is to fund social care. Tax the people who use it. Pensioners can afford the tax, working people can't. Raising £20bn from over 65s would be easy and it's not as though they can easily leave the country to a lower tax jurisdiction. Again, 16% of pensioners are in the higher tax bracket. They pay at least £3000 less in tax than someone who works and they receive at least £9k in benefits. That 16% can cover the whole £20bn and more. It's time to make taxes fair.

Trouble is that wealthy retired people are the core demographic for Johnson's Conservatives (and to be fair, they always have been in modern times). And less wealthy but comfortable retired homeowners in the north are the next ones on Johnson's list. That's where his majority is from.

Anyone else in the great Conservative tradition is like the wife who has been dumped for a fruiter model.

Except there's no alimony this time.

Exactly, home owning over 65s are the Tories core vote and those in the 45-65 bracket who own property and are waiting for an inheritance are who won the Tories the last general election.

Even in 2019 Labour won under 44s so they can largely be ignored as far as the Tories are concerned, most of the under 40s are not voting Tory

Gives me a convenient opportunity to post this graphic from 2019, showing the results of research into where the two main parties derive their support:



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-47909281

As you say, the Tory core vote is (1) old people, who are also largely homeowners, and (2) middle class, middle aged or near pensionable people, who are mostly homeowners or mortgage payers, and a great many of whom are also expectant heirs.

Based on this, there are three things that a Johnson (i.e. populist) Tory Government ought not to do:

*Make pensioners pay for anything
*Try to put new taxes on property
*Raise inheritance tax

If they do actually elect to deprive oldies of the bumper state pension rise they have coming next Spring then it will be a very brave decision - in the Sir Humphrey sense of the word.

And the correct one (I am a pensioner so would be affected)

Good, you should pay. Or do you think I shouldn't pay my tuition fees?

Tuition fees were a labour policy and agreed by the lib dems

My granddaughter is starting a five year course at Leeds next week and the fees are eye watering

And when you say I should pay, you do know it is the amount of increase being argued over here not a reduction in the state pension

People continue to look at this in total wrong way. Very few people will ever pay those fees, in reality for most people it is a capped graduate tax, which is basically what would happen if there weren't any fees.

Why should there be a capped graduate tax?

Why should eg a successful electrician earning six figure salaries have a lifetime lower tax rate than eg a teacher or other graduate with a lower income who happens to have a degree?

That's what I meant, the only difference would be a specific graduate tax, that wouldn't be capped. One downside of that is if an individual leaves the country, they won't owe anything. That might be motivation for some successful people to move.

I'm saying why would there have to be a graduate tax?

If you're going to do Education via taxation, then why should only graduates pay the tax? Taxation should be applicable to all.

Well that's what we used to have, and then there is no need for fee structure at all. But I am not sure the 50% who don't benefit from university would be very happy to subsidize the 50% who do, or those that paid off their loans already, asked to pay again.

It quite different situation from when 15% went to uni.

Obviously Jezza free uni for all was going to be this....very popular with the yuff, who saw words free, but not sure they quite realised it still meant higher taxes when they were working. There was no free lunch.

Ed Miliband if I remember correctly wanted to move to an explicit graduate tax.

I think the current system was badly explained / sold. It would have been much easier to brand it as a capped graduate tax. And I personally would have had things like incentives for are a doctor, nurse, dentist, you stay in NHS, every year you bring down the cap.

Willetts proposed a graduate tax but George Osborne rejected anything with the word tax in it, which is how we got here. It is politically stupid. Not for the first time, the so-called strategic genius Osborne hurt his own party – by saddling students with debt, and debt that is not repaid is still debt.

Stuartinromford said:

MaxPB said:

Philip_Thompson said:

The pattern of party support did change radically at the last GE. The crossover age of voting Tory instead of Labour dropped all the way from 55 to 39. Hence why the Tories won an eighty seat majority instead of no overall majority.

I think this tax will shift the voting age for Tories to well above 55, maybe approaching 60. I could easily see Labour get to 300+ seats if they oppose this and do it with some level of cunning.

Worth remembering that the incredibly steep age profile is a very recent phenomenon. These graphs are from the Mori post-election analyses;

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Benpointer said:

Charles said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

One of Prince Charles’s closest aides quit last night after claims that he had fixed an honour for a Saudi tycoon who donated more than £1.5 million to royal charities.

Michael Fawcett, the prince’s former valet, stepped down temporarily as chief executive of the Prince’s Foundation after The Sunday Times provided evidence of Charles’s dealings with the businessman.

Mahfouz Marei Mubarak bin Mahfouz paid tens of thousands of pounds to fixers with links to the prince who had told him they could secure the honour.

Charles, 72, personally awarded Mahfouz, 51, his CBE at a private ceremony at Buckingham Palace in November 2016. The event was not announced in the Court Circular, the official list of royal engagements.

Aides close to the prince and senior staff in his charities had helped the paid fixers to secure the CBE after Mahfouz donated large sums to restoration projects of particular interest to Charles, including Dumfries House and the Castle of Mey.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/prince-charles-aides-fixed-cbe-for-saudi-tycoon-who-gave-1-5m-0b5cb7qf2

I think I will have to ask the police to investigate this.

Why? Some old houses got restored and some fat bloke gets to wear a bit of ribbon on his chest. Net net it’s good

I assume you are being tongue in cheek here @Charles.

If not, can you not see how corrupt this kind of thing looks to normal people?

It may well be corrupt but as someone who cares not a jot for the honours system, I cannot get too worked up over this. It is an old idea that companies' charitable works were paid from the "chairman's knighthood fund" and this is not, at first glance, radically different. Perhaps the stimulation of charitable works is the only good thing that can be said for the honours system.

MaxPB said:

Stuartinromford said:

MaxPB said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

MaxPB said:

Aslan said:

MaxPB said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

MaxPB said:

Real Tories all coming out against the idiot NI rise. Boris has lost it, Rishi needs to push back and axe it completely now. Press the advantage.

As I understand it Rishi wanted a higher increase

No, Rishi wanted no tax rise, Boris and Sajid wanted 2% on employees and 2% on employers, he forced them down to 1% on each. If he pushes again now he can get rid of it completely.

Rishi is in the right. We need to pay down the debt, not leave it for future generations to pay off. Anti-tax zealotry is out of control on the backbenches.

Since when is this proposed tax rise going to pay down the debt?! It's tax and spend, the state is deciding to take a larger proportion of the economy leaving less for everyone else. The solution is and has always been to grow the bloody economy. The tax burden is already too high.

With the best will in the world tax rises are coming no matter who is HMG

This specific tax is to fund social care. Tax the people who use it. Pensioners can afford the tax, working people can't. Raising £20bn from over 65s would be easy and it's not as though they can easily leave the country to a lower tax jurisdiction. Again, 16% of pensioners are in the higher tax bracket. They pay at least £3000 less in tax than someone who works and they receive at least £9k in benefits. That 16% can cover the whole £20bn and more. It's time to make taxes fair.

Trouble is that wealthy retired people are the core demographic for Johnson's Conservatives (and to be fair, they always have been in modern times). And less wealthy but comfortable retired homeowners in the north are the next ones on Johnson's list. That's where his majority is from.

Anyone else in the great Conservative tradition is like the wife who has been dumped for a fruiter model.

Except there's no alimony this time.

They have nowhere else to go. They'll grumble a bit and go and vote Tory in 2024. Working age people have no such difficulty. I live in a marginal seat, it's a nailed on Tory loss at this rate. I'm not even talking about taxing all pensioners more, just the 2m higher rate ones.

Stuartinromford said:

MaxPB said:

Philip_Thompson said:

The pattern of party support did change radically at the last GE. The crossover age of voting Tory instead of Labour dropped all the way from 55 to 39. Hence why the Tories won an eighty seat majority instead of no overall majority.

I think this tax will shift the voting age for Tories to well above 55, maybe approaching 60. I could easily see Labour get to 300+ seats if they oppose this and do it with some level of cunning.

Worth remembering that the incredibly steep age profile is a very recent phenomenon. These graphs are from the Mori post-election analyses;