BREAKING: Sunak is going to take a day off the trail tomorrow in a highly unusual move so early in the campaign. He will spend it at home in talks with his senior aides. But the Tories insist this is NOT a campaign relaunch.
No wonder we have a productivity problem in the UK when the top boss doesn't work overtime at a crucial time.
Time spent planning is usually time well spent, but surely the time should have been taken last weekend?
I’m sure planning has been done prior to kickoff. It’s a Bank Holiday weekend I can forgive Sunak wanting to take a day to firm up some of the details of the campaign plan and possibly to get some decent time with his wife and children before the full onslaught. I hope Keir and Ed Davey avail themselves of similar opportunities.
I hope the press get bored with trying to turn everything Rishi does into some new gaffe.
Back in the real world, the first days of Rishi's campaign have seen gaffe after gaffe so it is not surprising he will take a day off to reset. As I said earlier, this has been 2017 redux so kudos to Rishi for realising things are going pear-shaped and trying to address that.
I tbink the gaffes have been overdone by the journalists, but Sunak doesn't seem to have anything to announce. He is pottering around making these visits with nothing really to say other than weird small talk and softball questions. There are no policies.
Starmer isn’t exactly heavy on policies either. That’s entirely understandable at this point in the election. The gaffe narrative is overblown but then journalists often try to fit the facts into the narrative rather than allowing the narrative to flow from the facts. Now that wash up is over and Parliament stands prorogued the campaign will ramp up. I just hope the media decides to get bored with the current game.
Weirdly Hunt is in the Telegraph today giving some policy, saying he will end the cliffedge at £100k. Now it is actually right to thing to do and can be done without costing money, you can jiggle thresholds. Its a barrier to productivity and growth to have people refusing to take a payrise to just over £100k, instead doing less hours, longer holidays, etc. But 90% of the country won't care. It looks very out of touch.
Ok, good, and I'm sort of like: why the fuck hasn't that been addressed over the last 14 years?
It's just the sort of thing that Tory governments are meant to sort out.
There's so much shithouse gesture politics these days, devoid of substance or logic, and that applies to all the political parties who chase soundbites, memes, and the chance to piss over each other rather than sensible long-term decisions.
Well yes. For 14 years they have been dicking about for instance over IC + NI. They could have sorted that, combined them, sorted out the thresholds etc.
But again its symptom of politicians won't take difficult decisions that might have losers / be unpopular in the short term.
Cf Council Tax banding
I was always surprised that Lib Dems in coalition didn't demand local income tax as replacement for council tax (as was their policy for 2010).
Don't you think Cameron managed the LDs beautifully? They were so high on their own supply that they capitulated over tuition fees in exchange for a half-hearted referendum on AV (an voting system they weren't too keen on anyway).
One story was that the Conservative negotiators were surprised to find their LibDem counterparts did not even know what was in their own manifesto.
Certainly not as well as Hague and Osborne did. I think that they had lived so long on the basis that it didn't really matter what they promised that the reality of government was a bit of a shock.
But they made some excellent contributions to the Coalition. They talked the Tories into backing the NMW in a big way, the introduced the pupil premium, they did really good work on pensions and they encouraged a focus on increasing the PA rather than cutting taxes for the wealthy. Not a bad effort at all for a minority party, they should have been proud of it, not ashamed.
Morning all. Good to see we are back to 1000 comment threads. Happy days!
Unless YoUGov have altered their methodology, that's a pretty decent poll for the Tories. Best news they've had for a while. It could maybe be an early sign of pollsters 'crowding' as the GE approaches, or maybe people are just not that interested in it and that's reflected in some reversion to type.
I don't suppose we'll get more polls over the weekend, and next week's results should be more meaningful, but meanwhile it's something to cheer Sunak after a damp start to the campaign.
BREAKING: Sunak is going to take a day off the trail tomorrow in a highly unusual move so early in the campaign. He will spend it at home in talks with his senior aides. But the Tories insist this is NOT a campaign relaunch.
No wonder we have a productivity problem in the UK when the top boss doesn't work overtime at a crucial time.
Time spent planning is usually time well spent, but surely the time should have been taken last weekend?
I’m sure planning has been done prior to kickoff. It’s a Bank Holiday weekend I can forgive Sunak wanting to take a day to firm up some of the details of the campaign plan and possibly to get some decent time with his wife and children before the full onslaught. I hope Keir and Ed Davey avail themselves of similar opportunities.
I hope the press get bored with trying to turn everything Rishi does into some new gaffe.
Back in the real world, the first days of Rishi's campaign have seen gaffe after gaffe so it is not surprising he will take a day off to reset. As I said earlier, this has been 2017 redux so kudos to Rishi for realising things are going pear-shaped and trying to address that.
I tbink the gaffes have been overdone by the journalists, but Sunak doesn't seem to have anything to announce. He is pottering around making these visits with nothing really to say other than weird small talk and softball questions. There are no policies.
Starmer isn’t exactly heavy on policies either. That’s entirely understandable at this point in the election. The gaffe narrative is overblown but then journalists often try to fit the facts into the narrative rather than allowing the narrative to flow from the facts. Now that wash up is over and Parliament stands prorogued the campaign will ramp up. I just hope the media decides to get bored with the current game.
Weirdly Hunt is in the Telegraph today giving some policy, saying he will end the cliffedge at £100k. Now it is actually right to thing to do and can be done without costing money, you can jiggle thresholds. Its a barrier to productivity and growth to have people refusing to take a payrise to just over £100k, instead doing less hours, longer holidays, etc. But 90% of the country won't care. It looks very out of touch.
Ok, good, and I'm sort of like: why the fuck hasn't that been addressed over the last 14 years?
It's just the sort of thing that Tory governments are meant to sort out.
There's so much shithouse gesture politics these days, devoid of substance or logic, and that applies to all the political parties who chase soundbites, memes, and the chance to piss over each other rather than sensible long-term decisions.
Well yes. For 14 years they have been dicking about for instance over IC + NI. They could have sorted that, combined them, sorted out the thresholds etc.
But again its symptom of politicians won't take difficult decisions that might have losers / be unpopular in the short term.
Cf Council Tax banding
I was always surprised that Lib Dems in coalition didn't demand local income tax as replacement for council tax (as was their policy for 2010).
Don't you think Cameron managed the LDs beautifully? They were so high on their own supply that they capitulated over tuition fees in exchange for a half-hearted referendum on AV (an voting system they weren't too keen on anyway).
One story was that the Conservative negotiators were surprised to find their LibDem counterparts did not even know what was in their own manifesto.
Certainly not as well as Hague and Osborne did. I think that they had lived so long on the basis that it didn't really matter what they promised that the reality of government was a bit of a shock.
But they made some excellent contributions to the Coalition. They talked the Tories into backing the NMW in a big way, the introduced the pupil premium, they did really good work on pensions and they encouraged a focus on increasing the PA rather than cutting taxes for the wealthy. Not a bad effort at all for a minority party, they should have been proud of it, not ashamed.
It is a real shame they blew it with that stupid error over tuition fees.
Where, as we are seeing now, they were also 100% right in calling it out as a terrible idea, before they foolishly supported it.
BREAKING: Sunak is going to take a day off the trail tomorrow in a highly unusual move so early in the campaign. He will spend it at home in talks with his senior aides. But the Tories insist this is NOT a campaign relaunch.
No wonder we have a productivity problem in the UK when the top boss doesn't work overtime at a crucial time.
Time spent planning is usually time well spent, but surely the time should have been taken last weekend?
I’m sure planning has been done prior to kickoff. It’s a Bank Holiday weekend I can forgive Sunak wanting to take a day to firm up some of the details of the campaign plan and possibly to get some decent time with his wife and children before the full onslaught. I hope Keir and Ed Davey avail themselves of similar opportunities.
I hope the press get bored with trying to turn everything Rishi does into some new gaffe.
Back in the real world, the first days of Rishi's campaign have seen gaffe after gaffe so it is not surprising he will take a day off to reset. As I said earlier, this has been 2017 redux so kudos to Rishi for realising things are going pear-shaped and trying to address that.
I tbink the gaffes have been overdone by the journalists, but Sunak doesn't seem to have anything to announce. He is pottering around making these visits with nothing really to say other than weird small talk and softball questions. There are no policies.
Starmer isn’t exactly heavy on policies either. That’s entirely understandable at this point in the election. The gaffe narrative is overblown but then journalists often try to fit the facts into the narrative rather than allowing the narrative to flow from the facts. Now that wash up is over and Parliament stands prorogued the campaign will ramp up. I just hope the media decides to get bored with the current game.
Weirdly Hunt is in the Telegraph today giving some policy, saying he will end the cliffedge at £100k. Now it is actually right to thing to do and can be done without costing money, you can jiggle thresholds. Its a barrier to productivity and growth to have people refusing to take a payrise to just over £100k, instead doing less hours, longer holidays, etc. But 90% of the country won't care. It looks very out of touch.
Ok, good, and I'm sort of like: why the fuck hasn't that been addressed over the last 14 years?
It's just the sort of thing that Tory governments are meant to sort out.
There's so much shithouse gesture politics these days, devoid of substance or logic, and that applies to all the political parties who chase soundbites, memes, and the chance to piss over each other rather than sensible long-term decisions.
Well yes. For 14 years they have been dicking about for instance over IC + NI. They could have sorted that, combined them, sorted out the thresholds etc.
But again its symptom of politicians won't take difficult decisions that might have losers / be unpopular in the short term.
Cf Council Tax banding
I was always surprised that Lib Dems in coalition didn't demand local income tax as replacement for council tax (as was their policy for 2010).
Don't you think Cameron managed the LDs beautifully? They were so high on their own supply that they capitulated over tuition fees in exchange for a half-hearted referendum on AV (an voting system they weren't too keen on anyway).
One story was that the Conservative negotiators were surprised to find their LibDem counterparts did not even know what was in their own manifesto.
Certainly not as well as Hague and Osborne did. I think that they had lived so long on the basis that it didn't really matter what they promised that the reality of government was a bit of a shock.
But they made some excellent contributions to the Coalition. They talked the Tories into backing the NMW in a big way, the introduced the pupil premium, they did really good work on pensions and they encouraged a focus on increasing the PA rather than cutting taxes for the wealthy. Not a bad effort at all for a minority party, they should have been proud of it, not ashamed.
They were however responsible for the PO at a crucial period. Bad luck really. They were holding the parcel when the music stopped.
BREAKING: Sunak is going to take a day off the trail tomorrow in a highly unusual move so early in the campaign. He will spend it at home in talks with his senior aides. But the Tories insist this is NOT a campaign relaunch.
No wonder we have a productivity problem in the UK when the top boss doesn't work overtime at a crucial time.
Time spent planning is usually time well spent, but surely the time should have been taken last weekend?
I’m sure planning has been done prior to kickoff. It’s a Bank Holiday weekend I can forgive Sunak wanting to take a day to firm up some of the details of the campaign plan and possibly to get some decent time with his wife and children before the full onslaught. I hope Keir and Ed Davey avail themselves of similar opportunities.
I hope the press get bored with trying to turn everything Rishi does into some new gaffe.
Back in the real world, the first days of Rishi's campaign have seen gaffe after gaffe so it is not surprising he will take a day off to reset. As I said earlier, this has been 2017 redux so kudos to Rishi for realising things are going pear-shaped and trying to address that.
I tbink the gaffes have been overdone by the journalists, but Sunak doesn't seem to have anything to announce. He is pottering around making these visits with nothing really to say other than weird small talk and softball questions. There are no policies.
Starmer isn’t exactly heavy on policies either. That’s entirely understandable at this point in the election. The gaffe narrative is overblown but then journalists often try to fit the facts into the narrative rather than allowing the narrative to flow from the facts. Now that wash up is over and Parliament stands prorogued the campaign will ramp up. I just hope the media decides to get bored with the current game.
Weirdly Hunt is in the Telegraph today giving some policy, saying he will end the cliffedge at £100k. Now it is actually right to thing to do and can be done without costing money, you can jiggle thresholds. Its a barrier to productivity and growth to have people refusing to take a payrise to just over £100k, instead doing less hours, longer holidays, etc. But 90% of the country won't care. It looks very out of touch.
Ok, good, and I'm sort of like: why the fuck hasn't that been addressed over the last 14 years?
It's just the sort of thing that Tory governments are meant to sort out.
There's so much shithouse gesture politics these days, devoid of substance or logic, and that applies to all the political parties who chase soundbites, memes, and the chance to piss over each other rather than sensible long-term decisions.
Well yes. For 14 years they have been dicking about for instance over IC + NI. They could have sorted that, combined them, sorted out the thresholds etc.
But again its symptom of politicians won't take difficult decisions that might have losers / be unpopular in the short term.
Cf Council Tax banding
I was always surprised that Lib Dems in coalition didn't demand local income tax as replacement for council tax (as was their policy for 2010).
Don't you think Cameron managed the LDs beautifully? They were so high on their own supply that they capitulated over tuition fees in exchange for a half-hearted referendum on AV (an voting system they weren't too keen on anyway).
One story was that the Conservative negotiators were surprised to find their LibDem counterparts did not even know what was in their own manifesto.
Certainly not as well as Hague and Osborne did. I think that they had lived so long on the basis that it didn't really matter what they promised that the reality of government was a bit of a shock.
But they made some excellent contributions to the Coalition. They talked the Tories into backing the NMW in a big way, the introduced the pupil premium, they did really good work on pensions and they encouraged a focus on increasing the PA rather than cutting taxes for the wealthy. Not a bad effort at all for a minority party, they should have been proud of it, not ashamed.
The likes of Danny Alexander, Steve Webb and Norman Lamb were actually rather helpful for the Tories, in that they were very good at their jobs, particular in case of Webb, an actual expect in the field. They boostered the overall strength of the team and were actually grown ups not spending all their time looking to find ways to play petty party politics.
You look now at all three 3 parties top teams and they are very weak once you get past the top 3-4 people.
Why are the Tories talking about unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy? Do they think it’s an electoral win to resurrect Trussonomics? They should steer well clear from bold taxation moves. It undermines the core offer of Sunak and Hunt.
Such a confusing message.
£100k cliffedge is easy to change without costing anything. You can just change thresholds.
Bad optics. They should steer well clear.
Fuck the optics. The £100k cliffedge is a disaster that has serious real-world economic and productivity impacts.
The fact that everything in politics is about "optics" is one of our biggest problems.
Real leaders lead.
This was a party political broadcast by the Liz Truss Party.
Again, a silly little remark trying to play it for laughs rather than engage in the substance.
Even Nick Palmer ex-MP - who is pretty left-wing, let's remember - agrees this is an issue and regrets his part in bringing it in. Which was also about "optics".
Truss didn't propose to remove the 100k tax trap. It's one of the biggest marks against her 6 weeks in office, because she was also going for "optics" but of a different kind.
Politics is all about priorities and context. Making a feature of tax thresholds for the well off (however poorly designed) is not good politics today. It’s the sort of thing you do in budgets not election campaigns. You have to care about how policies are interpreted. As soon as you say 100k you’re on the defensive having to explain it.
It should be a priority. We elect our politicians to understand public opinion and then to lead it in the best interests of the country. Lots of people are now deliberately choosing jobs or working hours to avoid this tax-trap and it's sapping our productivity as a result. Even I've thought about giving up at times as I'm right in the middle of it.
On the "well-off" point here's one for you: the 2009 budget introduced the 100k cliff edge from April 2010, just before that election. That's 100k in 2010 pounds.
Do you know what that's worth today, inflation-adjusted for 2024?
£65,000.
A figure that most voters would dream of, that’s your political problem. Take a look at the household income distribution if you do not believe me.
Somewhere along the line conservatives forgot how to do politics. You need people to vote for you.
Why are the Tories talking about unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy? Do they think it’s an electoral win to resurrect Trussonomics? They should steer well clear from bold taxation moves. It undermines the core offer of Sunak and Hunt.
Such a confusing message.
£100k cliffedge is easy to change without costing anything. You can just change thresholds.
Bad optics. They should steer well clear.
Fuck the optics. The £100k cliffedge is a disaster that has serious real-world economic and productivity impacts.
The fact that everything in politics is about "optics" is one of our biggest problems.
Real leaders lead.
This was a party political broadcast by the Liz Truss Party.
Again, a silly little remark trying to play it for laughs rather than engage in the substance.
Even Nick Palmer ex-MP - who is pretty left-wing, let's remember - agrees this is an issue and regrets his part in bringing it in. Which was also about "optics".
Truss didn't propose to remove the 100k tax trap. It's one of the biggest marks against her 6 weeks in office, because she was also going for "optics" but of a different kind.
Politics is all about priorities and context. Making a feature of tax thresholds for the well off (however poorly designed) is not good politics today. It’s the sort of thing you do in budgets not election campaigns. You have to care about how policies are interpreted. As soon as you say 100k you’re on the defensive having to explain it.
It should be a priority. We elect our politicians to understand public opinion and then to lead it in the best interests of the country. Lots of people are now deliberately choosing jobs or working hours to avoid this tax-trap and it's sapping our productivity as a result. Even I've thought about giving up at times as I'm right in the middle of it.
On the "well-off" point here's one for you: the 2009 budget introduced the 100k cliff edge from April 2010, just before that election. That's 100k in 2010 pounds.
Do you know what that's worth today, inflation-adjusted for 2024?
£65,000.
A figure that most voters would dream of, that’s your political problem. Take a look at the household income distribution if you do not believe me.
Somewhere along the line conservatives forgot how to do politics. You need people to vote for you.
No, a level that many civil servants, GPs, consultants, head teachers, solicitors, businessmen and professionals now easily reach - they'd laugh at you calling them super-rich. You are hitting the successful middle-class.
But, your comment is very revealing.
It's very clear that under a Labour government your taxes will only be going in one direction: up.
Well at least Gove was on the right side of the Brexit divide, unlike that chancer Cameron.
Except he wasn't. That was the oddest thing. Gove for years had been Eurosceptic because he blamed the EU for destroying his parents' fishing business. Then his father popped up and said it wasn't the EU, and he'd just retired. Gove's political philosophy (or at least that part of it) was founded on a misapprehension.
He was still on the right side of the argument even if for mistaken reasons.
IMV subsequent events have shown that Brexit was the wrong side of the argument. A divisive, pointless argument which has damaged the country.
I have a vague impression, perhaps wrong, that you will disagree with me on this...
Comprehensively. If it was divisive well, that is politics for you and that was as much because of those who would not accept the result as those who embraced it. And of course it certainly wasn't pointless as history will show. Nor do I believe it has damaged the country. It is the Tory party that has done that and they would still have been there being useless with or without Brexit.
I imagine there were many in North America claiming that American Independence was divisive, pointless and damaged the country. We don't remember their whining today.
One of the great “what ifs” of history, is to envisage a world where the revolt is put down.
Does slavery get abolished in 1833, or does the fight over slavery extend across the empire?
Does British America expand West? Would there be an American Indian State, perhaps becoming a British dominion?
Does South West America remain part of Mexico?
It was the Haitian War of Independence that made slavery untenable. After that the cost of keeping slaves in line was simply unaffordable.
No, I don't think so. You can keep slaves forever if you want to and, sadly, many countries effectively still do - China being very close to one.
It ended because it became repugnant to too many people, and we were no longer tolerant of the ethics of what was required to keep it in place.
The Haitian revolt made an American presence untenable for France, which is quite a different thing. The cost of keeping slaves in line was measured in brutality, rather than cash (though it was a highly inefficient economic system for everyone but the rich), and you could correctly argue that tended to increase as a result. That might have been a contributory factor to rendering it unacceptable to the north.
BREAKING: Sunak is going to take a day off the trail tomorrow in a highly unusual move so early in the campaign. He will spend it at home in talks with his senior aides. But the Tories insist this is NOT a campaign relaunch.
No wonder we have a productivity problem in the UK when the top boss doesn't work overtime at a crucial time.
Time spent planning is usually time well spent, but surely the time should have been taken last weekend?
I’m sure planning has been done prior to kickoff. It’s a Bank Holiday weekend I can forgive Sunak wanting to take a day to firm up some of the details of the campaign plan and possibly to get some decent time with his wife and children before the full onslaught. I hope Keir and Ed Davey avail themselves of similar opportunities.
I hope the press get bored with trying to turn everything Rishi does into some new gaffe.
Back in the real world, the first days of Rishi's campaign have seen gaffe after gaffe so it is not surprising he will take a day off to reset. As I said earlier, this has been 2017 redux so kudos to Rishi for realising things are going pear-shaped and trying to address that.
I tbink the gaffes have been overdone by the journalists, but Sunak doesn't seem to have anything to announce. He is pottering around making these visits with nothing really to say other than weird small talk and softball questions. There are no policies.
Starmer isn’t exactly heavy on policies either. That’s entirely understandable at this point in the election. The gaffe narrative is overblown but then journalists often try to fit the facts into the narrative rather than allowing the narrative to flow from the facts. Now that wash up is over and Parliament stands prorogued the campaign will ramp up. I just hope the media decides to get bored with the current game.
Weirdly Hunt is in the Telegraph today giving some policy, saying he will end the cliffedge at £100k. Now it is actually right to thing to do and can be done without costing money, you can jiggle thresholds. Its a barrier to productivity and growth to have people refusing to take a payrise to just over £100k, instead doing less hours, longer holidays, etc. But 90% of the country won't care. It looks very out of touch.
Ok, good, and I'm sort of like: why the fuck hasn't that been addressed over the last 14 years?
It's just the sort of thing that Tory governments are meant to sort out.
There's so much shithouse gesture politics these days, devoid of substance or logic, and that applies to all the political parties who chase soundbites, memes, and the chance to piss over each other rather than sensible long-term decisions.
Well yes. For 14 years they have been dicking about for instance over IC + NI. They could have sorted that, combined them, sorted out the thresholds etc.
But again its symptom of politicians won't take difficult decisions that might have losers / be unpopular in the short term.
Cf Council Tax banding
I was always surprised that Lib Dems in coalition didn't demand local income tax as replacement for council tax (as was their policy for 2010).
Don't you think Cameron managed the LDs beautifully? They were so high on their own supply that they capitulated over tuition fees in exchange for a half-hearted referendum on AV (an voting system they weren't too keen on anyway).
One story was that the Conservative negotiators were surprised to find their LibDem counterparts did not even know what was in their own manifesto.
Certainly not as well as Hague and Osborne did. I think that they had lived so long on the basis that it didn't really matter what they promised that the reality of government was a bit of a shock.
But they made some excellent contributions to the Coalition. They talked the Tories into backing the NMW in a big way, the introduced the pupil premium, they did really good work on pensions and they encouraged a focus on increasing the PA rather than cutting taxes for the wealthy. Not a bad effort at all for a minority party, they should have been proud of it, not ashamed.
Why don’t they talk about it more? Surely a vote winner in 2015, 2017 and 2019. Ed Davey doesn’t want to talk about his record in office. Why?
Why are the Tories talking about unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy? Do they think it’s an electoral win to resurrect Trussonomics? They should steer well clear from bold taxation moves. It undermines the core offer of Sunak and Hunt.
Such a confusing message.
£100k cliffedge is easy to change without costing anything. You can just change thresholds.
Bad optics. They should steer well clear.
Fuck the optics. The £100k cliffedge is a disaster that has serious real-world economic and productivity impacts.
The fact that everything in politics is about "optics" is one of our biggest problems.
Real leaders lead.
The thing is remember bedroom tax. That bad terrible optics, but 5 years later Tories won a majority. And of course Thatcher did load of things that were seen as bad optics. You would think they would learn, Do it early in a parliament, stick to it and the evidence is the public generally ask a wider question at a GE, have roughly the right decisions been made, am I better off, etc.
Very much agree. Johnson’s regime was obsessed with optics over substance as well - essentially prioritising tactics over strategy, to the benefit of nobody.
Hopefully Starmer has a five and ten year strategic outlook and is willing to make choices with poor optics that are necessary in order to be able to go back to the electorate with Reagan’s crucial question likely to be answered in the affirmitive.
A good friend of mine is a very senior forensic psychiatrist employed by the Home Office/cops from time to time. As a consultant. He’s known to be brilliant
He’s personally reviewed the Letby case and he’s fairly sure she is innocent - not convinced, but he certainly has reasonable doubt
I have no dog in this fight. I assumed the conviction was watertight. He told me this over lunch just before Xmas. Disturbing"
Why would a forensic psychiatrist be able to assess evidence about how premature babies died?
The evidence against Letby was not based on her psychiatric state but on the non-natural causes of the deaths and that Letby was the only nurse who was present at the relevant times.
I've seen a number of middle aged men unwilling to believe Letby's guilt. They see the image of the pretty blond nurse holding up a babygro and forget that a jury sat through months of evidence to reach their conclusions.
Every wrong conviction involves a jury.
Quite (except technically there's also magistrates). The argument you are replying to kept Paula going for a decade.
Why are the Tories talking about unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy? Do they think it’s an electoral win to resurrect Trussonomics? They should steer well clear from bold taxation moves. It undermines the core offer of Sunak and Hunt.
Such a confusing message.
£100k cliffedge is easy to change without costing anything. You can just change thresholds.
Bad optics. They should steer well clear.
Fuck the optics. The £100k cliffedge is a disaster that has serious real-world economic and productivity impacts.
The fact that everything in politics is about "optics" is one of our biggest problems.
Real leaders lead.
This was a party political broadcast by the Liz Truss Party.
Again, a silly little remark trying to play it for laughs rather than engage in the substance.
Even Nick Palmer ex-MP - who is pretty left-wing, let's remember - agrees this is an issue and regrets his part in bringing it in. Which was also about "optics".
Truss didn't propose to remove the 100k tax trap. It's one of the biggest marks against her 6 weeks in office, because she was also going for "optics" but of a different kind.
Politics is all about priorities and context. Making a feature of tax thresholds for the well off (however poorly designed) is not good politics today. It’s the sort of thing you do in budgets not election campaigns. You have to care about how policies are interpreted. As soon as you say 100k you’re on the defensive having to explain it.
It should be a priority. We elect our politicians to understand public opinion and then to lead it in the best interests of the country. Lots of people are now deliberately choosing jobs or working hours to avoid this tax-trap and it's sapping our productivity as a result. Even I've thought about giving up at times as I'm right in the middle of it.
On the "well-off" point here's one for you: the 2009 budget introduced the 100k cliff edge from April 2010, just before that election. That's 100k in 2010 pounds.
Do you know what that's worth today, inflation-adjusted for 2024?
£65,000.
A figure that most voters would dream of, that’s your political problem. Take a look at the household income distribution if you do not believe me.
Somewhere along the line conservatives forgot how to do politics. You need people to vote for you.
No, a level that many civil servants, GPs, consultants, head teachers, solicitors, businessmen and professionals now easily reach - they'd laugh at you calling them super-rich. You are hitting the successful middle-class.
But, your comment is very revealing.
It's very clear that under a Labour government your taxes will only be going in one direction: up.
Check out where a salary of 100k puts you on the income distribution. You’ll be surprised.
Why are the Tories talking about unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy? Do they think it’s an electoral win to resurrect Trussonomics? They should steer well clear from bold taxation moves. It undermines the core offer of Sunak and Hunt.
Such a confusing message.
£100k cliffedge is easy to change without costing anything. You can just change thresholds.
Bad optics. They should steer well clear.
Fuck the optics. The £100k cliffedge is a disaster that has serious real-world economic and productivity impacts.
The fact that everything in politics is about "optics" is one of our biggest problems.
Real leaders lead.
The thing is remember bedroom tax. That bad terrible optics, but 5 years later Tories won a majority. And of course Thatcher did load of things that were seen as bad optics. You would think they would learn, Do it early in a parliament, stick to it and the evidence is the public generally ask a wider question at a GE, have roughly the right decisions been made, am I better off, etc.
Very much agree. Johnson’s regime was obsessed with optics over substance as well - essentially prioritising tactics over strategy, to the benefit of nobody.
Hopefully Starmer has a five and ten year strategic outlook and is willing to make choices with poor optics that are necessary in order to be able to go back to the electorate with Reagan’s crucial question likely to be answered in the affirmitive.
I think you are being too generous to Johnson premiership ;-) ...not sure there was even any tactics.
BREAKING: Sunak is going to take a day off the trail tomorrow in a highly unusual move so early in the campaign. He will spend it at home in talks with his senior aides. But the Tories insist this is NOT a campaign relaunch.
No wonder we have a productivity problem in the UK when the top boss doesn't work overtime at a crucial time.
Time spent planning is usually time well spent, but surely the time should have been taken last weekend?
I’m sure planning has been done prior to kickoff. It’s a Bank Holiday weekend I can forgive Sunak wanting to take a day to firm up some of the details of the campaign plan and possibly to get some decent time with his wife and children before the full onslaught. I hope Keir and Ed Davey avail themselves of similar opportunities.
I hope the press get bored with trying to turn everything Rishi does into some new gaffe.
Back in the real world, the first days of Rishi's campaign have seen gaffe after gaffe so it is not surprising he will take a day off to reset. As I said earlier, this has been 2017 redux so kudos to Rishi for realising things are going pear-shaped and trying to address that.
I tbink the gaffes have been overdone by the journalists, but Sunak doesn't seem to have anything to announce. He is pottering around making these visits with nothing really to say other than weird small talk and softball questions. There are no policies.
Starmer isn’t exactly heavy on policies either. That’s entirely understandable at this point in the election. The gaffe narrative is overblown but then journalists often try to fit the facts into the narrative rather than allowing the narrative to flow from the facts. Now that wash up is over and Parliament stands prorogued the campaign will ramp up. I just hope the media decides to get bored with the current game.
Weirdly Hunt is in the Telegraph today giving some policy, saying he will end the cliffedge at £100k. Now it is actually right to thing to do and can be done without costing money, you can jiggle thresholds. Its a barrier to productivity and growth to have people refusing to take a payrise to just over £100k, instead doing less hours, longer holidays, etc. But 90% of the country won't care. It looks very out of touch.
Daisy Cooper said she was going to review IR35 and the loan charge stuff on QT last night. Which also won't matter to 90% of the country, but I'd guess would be more relevant like the £100k threshold in the south-east.
Loan charge is dead, it should have been paid on April 6th 2019 and would be impossible to reverse.
IR35 - let me show you £65bn reasons why it can’t be reversed and £20bn of those are fairly instant because any agency based work would be outside the day the law changed to allow their prices to be cut 20%
The £100k issue is fiscal drag in action if it had been increased with inflation it would be £150,000 or so and would impact way fewer people
Why are the Tories talking about unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy? Do they think it’s an electoral win to resurrect Trussonomics? They should steer well clear from bold taxation moves. It undermines the core offer of Sunak and Hunt.
Such a confusing message.
£100k cliffedge is easy to change without costing anything. You can just change thresholds.
Bad optics. They should steer well clear.
Fuck the optics. The £100k cliffedge is a disaster that has serious real-world economic and productivity impacts.
The fact that everything in politics is about "optics" is one of our biggest problems.
Real leaders lead.
This was a party political broadcast by the Liz Truss Party.
Again, a silly little remark trying to play it for laughs rather than engage in the substance.
Even Nick Palmer ex-MP - who is pretty left-wing, let's remember - agrees this is an issue and regrets his part in bringing it in. Which was also about "optics".
Truss didn't propose to remove the 100k tax trap. It's one of the biggest marks against her 6 weeks in office, because she was also going for "optics" but of a different kind.
Politics is all about priorities and context. Making a feature of tax thresholds for the well off (however poorly designed) is not good politics today. It’s the sort of thing you do in budgets not election campaigns. You have to care about how policies are interpreted. As soon as you say 100k you’re on the defensive having to explain it.
It should be a priority. We elect our politicians to understand public opinion and then to lead it in the best interests of the country. Lots of people are now deliberately choosing jobs or working hours to avoid this tax-trap and it's sapping our productivity as a result. Even I've thought about giving up at times as I'm right in the middle of it.
On the "well-off" point here's one for you: the 2009 budget introduced the 100k cliff edge from April 2010, just before that election. That's 100k in 2010 pounds.
Do you know what that's worth today, inflation-adjusted for 2024?
£65,000.
A figure that most voters would dream of, that’s your political problem. Take a look at the household income distribution if you do not believe me.
Somewhere along the line conservatives forgot how to do politics. You need people to vote for you.
No, a level that many civil servants, GPs, consultants, head teachers, solicitors, businessmen and professionals now easily reach - they'd laugh at you calling them super-rich. You are hitting the successful middle-class.
But, your comment is very revealing.
It's very clear that under a Labour government your taxes will only be going in one direction: up.
1) They're not 'many people.'
2) Under *any* government our taxes are going to have to go up, thanks to two decades of profligacy and mismanagement. Unless we want to end up like Venezuela.
Labour is looking to introduce votes for 16 and 17-year-olds in its first year in government if it wins the election.
The party is closely studying how Scotland and Wales lowered the voting age and believes there is no reason why lowering the national voting age for general elections would need to take longer.
Sir Keir Starmer pledged to extend the franchise to younger voters in September with no indication of how quickly the policy would be implemented should it win the election. Party sources now say that while there is yet no commitment that the policy will be in the King’s Speech, it is nonetheless expected to be enacted quickly. “I would be extremely surprised if it wasn’t in the King’s Speech,” one said, describing the legislation needed as “extremely straightforward”.
I am against this. I am not convinced that 16 year olds are mature enough for the vote. They will have a lifetime of voting after they turn 18.
People love to slam the Tories for allegedly using voter ID to suppress votes against them. Will they slam this as a naked attempt to garner more youth votes for Labour? One man’s gerrymandering is another’s increasing the democratic franchise…
I was against it then went to Scotland in 2014 and some of the best arguments/campaigners on both sides were sixteen and seventeen year olds.
I'd raise it to 21 tbh. I was an idiot who knew nothing of how the world worked fresh out of school. It took a couple of years of being in the real world before I got a handle on how things worked. And a decade or so more after that...
16 year olds are children. 18 year olds are barely better, but given we allow them the right to drink, drive, get shot at for their country, leave home and tell their parents to do one at around this time, it seems to be the consensus age of majority.
Can any of us say we felt grown up at sixteen? Really?
Yet the conversations we had with sixth formers during our annual schools week as councillors were generally more thoughtful and insightful that probably 75% of those we had with ‘adults’ on the doorstep.
Mental faculties peak at around 30-40, right? If the lower limit was 21, the upper limit should really be around 60.
It peaks at 61, I reckon. Although a year’s further research might establish that it’s really at 62.
The interesting thing is that votes at 16 was often a topic raised with, or by, the pupils, and there was always a substantial number - occasionally even a majority - who felt they weren’t yet ready for the weighty responsibility of deciding who governs us. We councillors would race to be the first to share how lightly that responsibility sat on so many of their parents.
Since Brexit, my guess is that more of them will be up for it.
Yes, there’s a generation which has largely lost the (always questionable, and never absolute) respect the young have for their parents’ judgment.
Why are the Tories talking about unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy? Do they think it’s an electoral win to resurrect Trussonomics? They should steer well clear from bold taxation moves. It undermines the core offer of Sunak and Hunt.
Such a confusing message.
£100k cliffedge is easy to change without costing anything. You can just change thresholds.
Bad optics. They should steer well clear.
Fuck the optics. The £100k cliffedge is a disaster that has serious real-world economic and productivity impacts.
The fact that everything in politics is about "optics" is one of our biggest problems.
Real leaders lead.
The thing is remember bedroom tax. That bad terrible optics, but 5 years later Tories won a majority. And of course Thatcher did load of things that were seen as bad optics. You would think they would learn, Do it early in a parliament, stick to it and the evidence is the public generally ask a wider question at a GE, have roughly the right decisions been made, am I better off, etc.
Very much agree. Johnson’s regime was obsessed with optics over substance as well - essentially prioritising tactics over strategy, to the benefit of nobody.
Hopefully Starmer has a five and ten year strategic outlook and is willing to make choices with poor optics that are necessary in order to be able to go back to the electorate with Reagan’s crucial question likely to be answered in the affirmitive.
I think you are being too generous to Johnson premiership ;-) ...not sure there was even any tactics.
Such tactics as there were tended to be whatever was required to fuel Spaffer’s narcissism. Honestly I think the general inability of that regime to actually do much made it be of the less damaging governments of recent years; certainly less so than Cameron.
Well at least Gove was on the right side of the Brexit divide, unlike that chancer Cameron.
Except he wasn't. That was the oddest thing. Gove for years had been Eurosceptic because he blamed the EU for destroying his parents' fishing business. Then his father popped up and said it wasn't the EU, and he'd just retired. Gove's political philosophy (or at least that part of it) was founded on a misapprehension.
He was still on the right side of the argument even if for mistaken reasons.
IMV subsequent events have shown that Brexit was the wrong side of the argument. A divisive, pointless argument which has damaged the country.
I have a vague impression, perhaps wrong, that you will disagree with me on this...
Comprehensively. If it was divisive well, that is politics for you and that was as much because of those who would not accept the result as those who embraced it. And of course it certainly wasn't pointless as history will show. Nor do I believe it has damaged the country. It is the Tory party that has done that and they would still have been there being useless with or without Brexit.
I imagine there were many in North America claiming that American Independence was divisive, pointless and damaged the country. We don't remember their whining today.
One of the great “what ifs” of history, is to envisage a world where the revolt is put down.
Does slavery get abolished in 1833, or does the fight over slavery extend across the empire?
Does British America expand West? Would there be an American Indian State, perhaps becoming a British dominion?
Does South West America remain part of Mexico?
It was the Haitian War of Independence that made slavery untenable. After that the cost of keeping slaves in line was simply unaffordable.
No, I don't think so. You can keep slaves forever if you want to and, sadly, many countries effectively still do - China being very close to one.
It ended because it became repugnant to too many people, and we were no longer tolerant of the ethics of what was required to keep it in place.
The Haitian revolt made an American presence untenable for France, which is quite a different thing. The cost of keeping slaves in line was measured in brutality, rather than cash (though it was a highly inefficient economic system for everyone but the rich), and you could correctly argue that tended to increase as a result. That might have been a contributory factor to rendering it unacceptable to the north.
It was France's naval weakness that made such a presence untenable, in the face of British opposition.
It experienced defeat after defeat during the revolutionary wars.
BREAKING: Sunak is going to take a day off the trail tomorrow in a highly unusual move so early in the campaign. He will spend it at home in talks with his senior aides. But the Tories insist this is NOT a campaign relaunch.
No wonder we have a productivity problem in the UK when the top boss doesn't work overtime at a crucial time.
Time spent planning is usually time well spent, but surely the time should have been taken last weekend?
I’m sure planning has been done prior to kickoff. It’s a Bank Holiday weekend I can forgive Sunak wanting to take a day to firm up some of the details of the campaign plan and possibly to get some decent time with his wife and children before the full onslaught. I hope Keir and Ed Davey avail themselves of similar opportunities.
I hope the press get bored with trying to turn everything Rishi does into some new gaffe.
Back in the real world, the first days of Rishi's campaign have seen gaffe after gaffe so it is not surprising he will take a day off to reset. As I said earlier, this has been 2017 redux so kudos to Rishi for realising things are going pear-shaped and trying to address that.
I tbink the gaffes have been overdone by the journalists, but Sunak doesn't seem to have anything to announce. He is pottering around making these visits with nothing really to say other than weird small talk and softball questions. There are no policies.
Starmer isn’t exactly heavy on policies either. That’s entirely understandable at this point in the election. The gaffe narrative is overblown but then journalists often try to fit the facts into the narrative rather than allowing the narrative to flow from the facts. Now that wash up is over and Parliament stands prorogued the campaign will ramp up. I just hope the media decides to get bored with the current game.
Weirdly Hunt is in the Telegraph today giving some policy, saying he will end the cliffedge at £100k. Now it is actually right to thing to do and can be done without costing money, you can jiggle thresholds. Its a barrier to productivity and growth to have people refusing to take a payrise to just over £100k, instead doing less hours, longer holidays, etc. But 90% of the country won't care. It looks very out of touch.
Ok, good, and I'm sort of like: why the fuck hasn't that been addressed over the last 14 years?
It's just the sort of thing that Tory governments are meant to sort out.
There's so much shithouse gesture politics these days, devoid of substance or logic, and that applies to all the political parties who chase soundbites, memes, and the chance to piss over each other rather than sensible long-term decisions.
Well yes. For 14 years they have been dicking about for instance over IC + NI. They could have sorted that, combined them, sorted out the thresholds etc.
But again its symptom of politicians won't take difficult decisions that might have losers / be unpopular in the short term.
Cf Council Tax banding
I was always surprised that Lib Dems in coalition didn't demand local income tax as replacement for council tax (as was their policy for 2010).
Don't you think Cameron managed the LDs beautifully? They were so high on their own supply that they capitulated over tuition fees in exchange for a half-hearted referendum on AV (an voting system they weren't too keen on anyway).
One story was that the Conservative negotiators were surprised to find their LibDem counterparts did not even know what was in their own manifesto.
Certainly not as well as Hague and Osborne did. I think that they had lived so long on the basis that it didn't really matter what they promised that the reality of government was a bit of a shock.
But they made some excellent contributions to the Coalition. They talked the Tories into backing the NMW in a big way, the introduced the pupil premium, they did really good work on pensions and they encouraged a focus on increasing the PA rather than cutting taxes for the wealthy. Not a bad effort at all for a minority party, they should have been proud of it, not ashamed.
Why don’t they talk about it more? Surely a vote winner in 2015, 2017 and 2019. Ed Davey doesn’t want to talk about his record in office. Why?
I think they believe that the Lib Dem coalition years mean "student fees betrayal" to a load of voters who are now in their early 30s. And any reminder of that is to be avoided.
BREAKING: Sunak is going to take a day off the trail tomorrow in a highly unusual move so early in the campaign. He will spend it at home in talks with his senior aides. But the Tories insist this is NOT a campaign relaunch.
No wonder we have a productivity problem in the UK when the top boss doesn't work overtime at a crucial time.
Time spent planning is usually time well spent, but surely the time should have been taken last weekend?
I’m sure planning has been done prior to kickoff. It’s a Bank Holiday weekend I can forgive Sunak wanting to take a day to firm up some of the details of the campaign plan and possibly to get some decent time with his wife and children before the full onslaught. I hope Keir and Ed Davey avail themselves of similar opportunities.
I hope the press get bored with trying to turn everything Rishi does into some new gaffe.
Back in the real world, the first days of Rishi's campaign have seen gaffe after gaffe so it is not surprising he will take a day off to reset. As I said earlier, this has been 2017 redux so kudos to Rishi for realising things are going pear-shaped and trying to address that.
I tbink the gaffes have been overdone by the journalists, but Sunak doesn't seem to have anything to announce. He is pottering around making these visits with nothing really to say other than weird small talk and softball questions. There are no policies.
Starmer isn’t exactly heavy on policies either. That’s entirely understandable at this point in the election. The gaffe narrative is overblown but then journalists often try to fit the facts into the narrative rather than allowing the narrative to flow from the facts. Now that wash up is over and Parliament stands prorogued the campaign will ramp up. I just hope the media decides to get bored with the current game.
Weirdly Hunt is in the Telegraph today giving some policy, saying he will end the cliffedge at £100k. Now it is actually right to thing to do and can be done without costing money, you can jiggle thresholds. Its a barrier to productivity and growth to have people refusing to take a payrise to just over £100k, instead doing less hours, longer holidays, etc. But 90% of the country won't care. It looks very out of touch.
Ok, good, and I'm sort of like: why the fuck hasn't that been addressed over the last 14 years?
It's just the sort of thing that Tory governments are meant to sort out.
There's so much shithouse gesture politics these days, devoid of substance or logic, and that applies to all the political parties who chase soundbites, memes, and the chance to piss over each other rather than sensible long-term decisions.
Well yes. For 14 years they have been dicking about for instance over IC + NI. They could have sorted that, combined them, sorted out the thresholds etc.
But again its symptom of politicians won't take difficult decisions that might have losers / be unpopular in the short term.
Cf Council Tax banding
I was always surprised that Lib Dems in coalition didn't demand local income tax as replacement for council tax (as was their policy for 2010).
Vetoed by the Tories.
They could, and should have been more carefully selective and more insistent in their demands. Given later history, I suspect Clegg was simply more interested in what ministerial post he could occupy.
AV was indeed a mistake, since it didn’t even much appeal to those who support PR.
Why are the Tories talking about unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy? Do they think it’s an electoral win to resurrect Trussonomics? They should steer well clear from bold taxation moves. It undermines the core offer of Sunak and Hunt.
Such a confusing message.
£100k cliffedge is easy to change without costing anything. You can just change thresholds.
Bad optics. They should steer well clear.
Fuck the optics. The £100k cliffedge is a disaster that has serious real-world economic and productivity impacts.
The fact that everything in politics is about "optics" is one of our biggest problems.
Real leaders lead.
The thing is remember bedroom tax. That bad terrible optics, but 5 years later Tories won a majority. And of course Thatcher did load of things that were seen as bad optics. You would think they would learn, Do it early in a parliament, stick to it and the evidence is the public generally ask a wider question at a GE, have roughly the right decisions been made, am I better off, etc.
Very much agree. Johnson’s regime was obsessed with optics over substance as well - essentially prioritising tactics over strategy, to the benefit of nobody.
Hopefully Starmer has a five and ten year strategic outlook and is willing to make choices with poor optics that are necessary in order to be able to go back to the electorate with Reagan’s crucial question likely to be answered in the affirmitive.
I think you are being too generous to Johnson premiership ;-) ...not sure there was even any tactics.
Such tactics as there were tended to be whatever was required to fuel Spaffer’s narcissism. Honestly I think the general inability of that regime to actually do much made it be of the less damaging governments of recent years; certainly less so than Cameron.
I think plenty of damage was done. Large amounts of public money spaffed at things with little positive to show (not just COVID decisions, when you looked at so many of the levelling up projects, absolute joke), resulting in very high tax burden, high inflation and higher interest rates, low growth and poor public services. The UK is stuck in a death loop at the moment. If Starmer / Reeves can change that, we will have to wait and see, but this isn't 1997, they can't just come in and tweak taxes up a bit to better fund public services and all the positive indicators continue.
Why are the Tories talking about unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy? Do they think it’s an electoral win to resurrect Trussonomics? They should steer well clear from bold taxation moves. It undermines the core offer of Sunak and Hunt.
Such a confusing message.
£100k cliffedge is easy to change without costing anything. You can just change thresholds.
Bad optics. They should steer well clear.
Fuck the optics. The £100k cliffedge is a disaster that has serious real-world economic and productivity impacts.
The fact that everything in politics is about "optics" is one of our biggest problems.
Real leaders lead.
This was a party political broadcast by the Liz Truss Party.
Again, a silly little remark trying to play it for laughs rather than engage in the substance.
Even Nick Palmer ex-MP - who is pretty left-wing, let's remember - agrees this is an issue and regrets his part in bringing it in. Which was also about "optics".
Truss didn't propose to remove the 100k tax trap. It's one of the biggest marks against her 6 weeks in office, because she was also going for "optics" but of a different kind.
Politics is all about priorities and context. Making a feature of tax thresholds for the well off (however poorly designed) is not good politics today. It’s the sort of thing you do in budgets not election campaigns. You have to care about how policies are interpreted. As soon as you say 100k you’re on the defensive having to explain it.
It should be a priority. We elect our politicians to understand public opinion and then to lead it in the best interests of the country. Lots of people are now deliberately choosing jobs or working hours to avoid this tax-trap and it's sapping our productivity as a result. Even I've thought about giving up at times as I'm right in the middle of it.
On the "well-off" point here's one for you: the 2009 budget introduced the 100k cliff edge from April 2010, just before that election. That's 100k in 2010 pounds.
Do you know what that's worth today, inflation-adjusted for 2024?
£65,000.
A figure that most voters would dream of, that’s your political problem. Take a look at the household income distribution if you do not believe me.
Somewhere along the line conservatives forgot how to do politics. You need people to vote for you.
No, a level that many civil servants, GPs, consultants, head teachers, solicitors, businessmen and professionals now easily reach - they'd laugh at you calling them super-rich. You are hitting the successful middle-class.
But, your comment is very revealing.
It's very clear that under a Labour government your taxes will only be going in one direction: up.
1) They're not 'many people.'
2) Under *any* government our taxes are going to have to go up, thanks to two decades of profligacy and mismanagement. Unless we want to end up like Venezuela.
They are many people and remember that all will have started their careers at average salaries and only reach that level after many decades of hard work to do demanding jobs that yield rewards for just a few years in part of their career.
The country relies on that professional leadership to enhance its performance and productivity and thus outcomes in healthcare, education, and efficient delivery of important projects and services in both the public and private sector. We moan about outcomes and difficulties of getting more talent and there's a direct link.
Ludicrous taxation - which seemingly can't be changed because of "optics" - is just a illustration of the paucity of analysis, thinking and courage that exists in our politics today.
Why are the Tories talking about unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy? Do they think it’s an electoral win to resurrect Trussonomics? They should steer well clear from bold taxation moves. It undermines the core offer of Sunak and Hunt.
Such a confusing message.
£100k cliffedge is easy to change without costing anything. You can just change thresholds.
Bad optics. They should steer well clear.
Fuck the optics. The £100k cliffedge is a disaster that has serious real-world economic and productivity impacts.
The fact that everything in politics is about "optics" is one of our biggest problems.
Real leaders lead.
This was a party political broadcast by the Liz Truss Party.
Again, a silly little remark trying to play it for laughs rather than engage in the substance.
Even Nick Palmer ex-MP - who is pretty left-wing, let's remember - agrees this is an issue and regrets his part in bringing it in. Which was also about "optics".
Truss didn't propose to remove the 100k tax trap. It's one of the biggest marks against her 6 weeks in office, because she was also going for "optics" but of a different kind.
Politics is all about priorities and context. Making a feature of tax thresholds for the well off (however poorly designed) is not good politics today. It’s the sort of thing you do in budgets not election campaigns. You have to care about how policies are interpreted. As soon as you say 100k you’re on the defensive having to explain it.
It should be a priority. We elect our politicians to understand public opinion and then to lead it in the best interests of the country. Lots of people are now deliberately choosing jobs or working hours to avoid this tax-trap and it's sapping our productivity as a result. Even I've thought about giving up at times as I'm right in the middle of it.
On the "well-off" point here's one for you: the 2009 budget introduced the 100k cliff edge from April 2010, just before that election. That's 100k in 2010 pounds.
Do you know what that's worth today, inflation-adjusted for 2024?
£65,000.
A figure that most voters would dream of, that’s your political problem. Take a look at the household income distribution if you do not believe me.
Somewhere along the line conservatives forgot how to do politics. You need people to vote for you.
No, a level that many civil servants, GPs, consultants, head teachers, solicitors, businessmen and professionals now easily reach - they'd laugh at you calling them super-rich. You are hitting the successful middle-class.
But, your comment is very revealing.
It's very clear that under a Labour government your taxes will only be going in one direction: up.
Check out where a salary of 100k puts you on the income distribution. You’ll be surprised.
Using YouGov numbers from their megapoll, Westminster constituency data from the England and Wales census, and assuming no variation by constituency and that the age distribution of an electorate accounts for 100%* of the vote share, you can put together a rudimentary projection for the election.
This finds that Labour would win every single seat in England and Wales. This is even the case after adjusting for differential turnout, with younger people less likely to vote. The closest the Conservatives would come is in Isle of Wight East, but Labour would still have a 7,000 vote majority. The biggest Labour win would be in Poplar and Limehouse, at 26,000.
This is obviously nonsense, with Labour winning much larger majorities in 2019 (eg Knowsley at 40,000). But it does show the basic demographics are a major weakness for the Conservatives, with other factors like housing tenure and perhaps even the culture war what will bag them their constituencies. It suggests that these other factors differentiate constituencies rather than bring them closer together.
I also looked at the left/right wing split, adding Reform to the Tory vote and Green to the Labour vote. Labour still wins every seat, but it’s much closer. For example, Christchurch has a left wing lead of only 1,700 in this age-based projection. Older people voting for Reform is disaster for the Conservatives, while younger people voting Green is only an inconvenience for Labour.
I’ll post some more fatuous analysis based on employment status and housing tenure over the next couple of days.
*I’ve previously worked out that age distribution accounts for only around 40% of Tory vote share in Westminster constituencies.
Why are the Tories talking about unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy? Do they think it’s an electoral win to resurrect Trussonomics? They should steer well clear from bold taxation moves. It undermines the core offer of Sunak and Hunt.
Such a confusing message.
£100k cliffedge is easy to change without costing anything. You can just change thresholds.
Bad optics. They should steer well clear.
Fuck the optics. The £100k cliffedge is a disaster that has serious real-world economic and productivity impacts.
The fact that everything in politics is about "optics" is one of our biggest problems.
Real leaders lead.
This was a party political broadcast by the Liz Truss Party.
Again, a silly little remark trying to play it for laughs rather than engage in the substance.
Even Nick Palmer ex-MP - who is pretty left-wing, let's remember - agrees this is an issue and regrets his part in bringing it in. Which was also about "optics".
Truss didn't propose to remove the 100k tax trap. It's one of the biggest marks against her 6 weeks in office, because she was also going for "optics" but of a different kind.
Politics is all about priorities and context. Making a feature of tax thresholds for the well off (however poorly designed) is not good politics today. It’s the sort of thing you do in budgets not election campaigns. You have to care about how policies are interpreted. As soon as you say 100k you’re on the defensive having to explain it.
It should be a priority. We elect our politicians to understand public opinion and then to lead it in the best interests of the country. Lots of people are now deliberately choosing jobs or working hours to avoid this tax-trap and it's sapping our productivity as a result. Even I've thought about giving up at times as I'm right in the middle of it.
On the "well-off" point here's one for you: the 2009 budget introduced the 100k cliff edge from April 2010, just before that election. That's 100k in 2010 pounds.
Do you know what that's worth today, inflation-adjusted for 2024?
£65,000.
A figure that most voters would dream of, that’s your political problem. Take a look at the household income distribution if you do not believe me.
Somewhere along the line conservatives forgot how to do politics. You need people to vote for you.
No, a level that many civil servants, GPs, consultants, head teachers, solicitors, businessmen and professionals now easily reach - they'd laugh at you calling them super-rich. You are hitting the successful middle-class.
But, your comment is very revealing.
It's very clear that under a Labour government your taxes will only be going in one direction: up.
Check out where a salary of 100k puts you on the income distribution. You’ll be surprised.
The cost of scrapping the disallowance of the personal allowance and replacing with the additional threshold at £100,000 (The nearest cleaning up) would be £15 per £100 earnt to a maximum of £3771. The far bigger cliff edge is childcare at that salary level.
Why are the Tories talking about unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy? Do they think it’s an electoral win to resurrect Trussonomics? They should steer well clear from bold taxation moves. It undermines the core offer of Sunak and Hunt.
Such a confusing message.
£100k cliffedge is easy to change without costing anything. You can just change thresholds.
Bad optics. They should steer well clear.
Fuck the optics. The £100k cliffedge is a disaster that has serious real-world economic and productivity impacts.
The fact that everything in politics is about "optics" is one of our biggest problems.
Real leaders lead.
This was a party political broadcast by the Liz Truss Party.
Again, a silly little remark trying to play it for laughs rather than engage in the substance.
Even Nick Palmer ex-MP - who is pretty left-wing, let's remember - agrees this is an issue and regrets his part in bringing it in. Which was also about "optics".
Truss didn't propose to remove the 100k tax trap. It's one of the biggest marks against her 6 weeks in office, because she was also going for "optics" but of a different kind.
Politics is all about priorities and context. Making a feature of tax thresholds for the well off (however poorly designed) is not good politics today. It’s the sort of thing you do in budgets not election campaigns. You have to care about how policies are interpreted. As soon as you say 100k you’re on the defensive having to explain it.
It should be a priority. We elect our politicians to understand public opinion and then to lead it in the best interests of the country. Lots of people are now deliberately choosing jobs or working hours to avoid this tax-trap and it's sapping our productivity as a result. Even I've thought about giving up at times as I'm right in the middle of it.
On the "well-off" point here's one for you: the 2009 budget introduced the 100k cliff edge from April 2010, just before that election. That's 100k in 2010 pounds.
Do you know what that's worth today, inflation-adjusted for 2024?
£65,000.
A figure that most voters would dream of, that’s your political problem. Take a look at the household income distribution if you do not believe me.
Somewhere along the line conservatives forgot how to do politics. You need people to vote for you.
No, a level that many civil servants, GPs, consultants, head teachers, solicitors, businessmen and professionals now easily reach - they'd laugh at you calling them super-rich. You are hitting the successful middle-class.
But, your comment is very revealing.
It's very clear that under a Labour government your taxes will only be going in one direction: up.
Check out where a salary of 100k puts you on the income distribution. You’ll be surprised.
Now a salary of 65k.
Labour = taxes up
Believe it or not I’m trying to help you. There was a time when Tories used to have political antennae. Suggest you look back at the thresholds Cameron used to talk about.
Oh well.
Are the Tories going to the country on their record on low taxes? Seriously? You really want to go there?
I usually think I have general elections in the bag, betting wise, the only two I have called wrong, were 2010 and 2017, I was pretty sure Major would beat Kinnock, also Cameron would beat Miliband. The one election that baffles me still is 2017, I don't really go for all this, she run a poor campaign.I think most people have made their mind up, when the election is called, and the vast majority take very little notice of any campaigns.The question is how did the polsters get 2017 so wrong, and could it happen again.In many ways Corbyn and Johnson are similar, both entirely unsuited to the job of PM, but yet managing to get people to back them over a cliff. This time round Sunak and Starmer, are both fairly uninspiring, but at this stage Sunak still seems to have the support of the media, which could still be vital. So who wins, I think people are forgetting Labour are coming from a long way back, I think anywhere between a 50 seat Labour majority to a hung parliament is my call, tactical voting could hold the key, if it materialises
I remember William Hague saying that election campaigns have a negligable effect on the result. That was turned on it's head by Theresa May but I think the circumstances were unique.
There seemed to be a change of zeitgeist midway through the campaign which was very strange. I was going to be out of the country on election day and though I would probably have voted Corbyn if I'd been here I didn't particularly like him or dislike her.
But something happened during the last couple of weeks that made me strongly want her to lose. She suddenly became the the 'Nasty Tory' she had warned us about years earlier. Unfortunately I cant remember what she did but I made sure I voted.
Why are the Tories talking about unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy? Do they think it’s an electoral win to resurrect Trussonomics? They should steer well clear from bold taxation moves. It undermines the core offer of Sunak and Hunt.
Such a confusing message.
£100k cliffedge is easy to change without costing anything. You can just change thresholds.
Bad optics. They should steer well clear.
Fuck the optics. The £100k cliffedge is a disaster that has serious real-world economic and productivity impacts.
The fact that everything in politics is about "optics" is one of our biggest problems.
Real leaders lead.
This was a party political broadcast by the Liz Truss Party.
Again, a silly little remark trying to play it for laughs rather than engage in the substance.
Even Nick Palmer ex-MP - who is pretty left-wing, let's remember - agrees this is an issue and regrets his part in bringing it in. Which was also about "optics".
Truss didn't propose to remove the 100k tax trap. It's one of the biggest marks against her 6 weeks in office, because she was also going for "optics" but of a different kind.
Politics is all about priorities and context. Making a feature of tax thresholds for the well off (however poorly designed) is not good politics today. It’s the sort of thing you do in budgets not election campaigns. You have to care about how policies are interpreted. As soon as you say 100k you’re on the defensive having to explain it.
It should be a priority. We elect our politicians to understand public opinion and then to lead it in the best interests of the country. Lots of people are now deliberately choosing jobs or working hours to avoid this tax-trap and it's sapping our productivity as a result. Even I've thought about giving up at times as I'm right in the middle of it.
On the "well-off" point here's one for you: the 2009 budget introduced the 100k cliff edge from April 2010, just before that election. That's 100k in 2010 pounds.
Do you know what that's worth today, inflation-adjusted for 2024?
£65,000.
A figure that most voters would dream of, that’s your political problem. Take a look at the household income distribution if you do not believe me.
Somewhere along the line conservatives forgot how to do politics. You need people to vote for you.
No, a level that many civil servants, GPs, consultants, head teachers, solicitors, businessmen and professionals now easily reach - they'd laugh at you calling them super-rich. You are hitting the successful middle-class.
But, your comment is very revealing.
It's very clear that under a Labour government your taxes will only be going in one direction: up.
1) They're not 'many people.'
2) Under *any* government our taxes are going to have to go up, thanks to two decades of profligacy and mismanagement. Unless we want to end up like Venezuela.
They are many people and remember that all will have started their careers at average salaries and only reach that level after many decades of hard work to do demanding jobs that yield rewards for just a few years in part of their career.
The country relies on that professional leadership to enhance its performance and productivity and thus outcomes in healthcare, education, and efficient delivery of important projects and services in both the public and private sector. We moan about outcomes and difficulties of getting more talent and there's a direct link.
Ludicrous taxation - which seemingly can't be changed because of "optics" - is just a illustration of the paucity of analysis, thinking and courage that exists in our politics today.
They are around 4% of the population. Not the majority or even an especially large minority.
Civil Servants seem to me to be rank amateurs half the time. I wouldn't pay Case, Acland-Hood, Wormald minimum wage to run an Aldi.
I've also seen several leaders in education unfit to run a whelk stall.
As for GPs, well, they're a mixed bag.
As we are seeing with the Horizon inquiry, there are many people of at most average ability rising to the top through a combination of luck, good connections and in some cases a willingness to cover up the crimes of others. I'm not seeing convincing evidence that getting rid of them would make a material difference to our country's prospects.
Why are the Tories talking about unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy? Do they think it’s an electoral win to resurrect Trussonomics? They should steer well clear from bold taxation moves. It undermines the core offer of Sunak and Hunt.
Such a confusing message.
£100k cliffedge is easy to change without costing anything. You can just change thresholds.
Bad optics. They should steer well clear.
Fuck the optics. The £100k cliffedge is a disaster that has serious real-world economic and productivity impacts.
The fact that everything in politics is about "optics" is one of our biggest problems.
Real leaders lead.
This was a party political broadcast by the Liz Truss Party.
Again, a silly little remark trying to play it for laughs rather than engage in the substance.
Even Nick Palmer ex-MP - who is pretty left-wing, let's remember - agrees this is an issue and regrets his part in bringing it in. Which was also about "optics".
Truss didn't propose to remove the 100k tax trap. It's one of the biggest marks against her 6 weeks in office, because she was also going for "optics" but of a different kind.
Politics is all about priorities and context. Making a feature of tax thresholds for the well off (however poorly designed) is not good politics today. It’s the sort of thing you do in budgets not election campaigns. You have to care about how policies are interpreted. As soon as you say 100k you’re on the defensive having to explain it.
It should be a priority. We elect our politicians to understand public opinion and then to lead it in the best interests of the country. Lots of people are now deliberately choosing jobs or working hours to avoid this tax-trap and it's sapping our productivity as a result. Even I've thought about giving up at times as I'm right in the middle of it.
On the "well-off" point here's one for you: the 2009 budget introduced the 100k cliff edge from April 2010, just before that election. That's 100k in 2010 pounds.
Do you know what that's worth today, inflation-adjusted for 2024?
£65,000.
A figure that most voters would dream of, that’s your political problem. Take a look at the household income distribution if you do not believe me.
Somewhere along the line conservatives forgot how to do politics. You need people to vote for you.
No, a level that many civil servants, GPs, consultants, head teachers, solicitors, businessmen and professionals now easily reach - they'd laugh at you calling them super-rich. You are hitting the successful middle-class.
But, your comment is very revealing.
It's very clear that under a Labour government your taxes will only be going in one direction: up.
Check out where a salary of 100k puts you on the income distribution. You’ll be surprised.
Now a salary of 65k.
Labour = taxes up
I don't think people have really figured out just how much the inflation of the past 3 years has effected things.
I was talking to an academic at a top university the other day and they said they are really struggling to get PhD students. I said Brexit? And he said, a bit, but stipend is the biggest problem. Its £18.5k outside of London. They said when they did their PhD their stipend in todays money would be £27k. Up until 3 years ago, yes stipends had fallen behind, I think they said it would have been about £20k in 2018 money, but equivalent of £7k inflated away.
Same with post-docs, their money is £20k below what it used to be in real times from 20 years ago.
BREAKING: Sunak is going to take a day off the trail tomorrow in a highly unusual move so early in the campaign. He will spend it at home in talks with his senior aides. But the Tories insist this is NOT a campaign relaunch.
No wonder we have a productivity problem in the UK when the top boss doesn't work overtime at a crucial time.
Time spent planning is usually time well spent, but surely the time should have been taken last weekend?
I’m sure planning has been done prior to kickoff. It’s a Bank Holiday weekend I can forgive Sunak wanting to take a day to firm up some of the details of the campaign plan and possibly to get some decent time with his wife and children before the full onslaught. I hope Keir and Ed Davey avail themselves of similar opportunities.
I hope the press get bored with trying to turn everything Rishi does into some new gaffe.
Back in the real world, the first days of Rishi's campaign have seen gaffe after gaffe so it is not surprising he will take a day off to reset. As I said earlier, this has been 2017 redux so kudos to Rishi for realising things are going pear-shaped and trying to address that.
I tbink the gaffes have been overdone by the journalists, but Sunak doesn't seem to have anything to announce. He is pottering around making these visits with nothing really to say other than weird small talk and softball questions. There are no policies.
Starmer isn’t exactly heavy on policies either. That’s entirely understandable at this point in the election. The gaffe narrative is overblown but then journalists often try to fit the facts into the narrative rather than allowing the narrative to flow from the facts. Now that wash up is over and Parliament stands prorogued the campaign will ramp up. I just hope the media decides to get bored with the current game.
Weirdly Hunt is in the Telegraph today giving some policy, saying he will end the cliffedge at £100k. Now it is actually right to thing to do and can be done without costing money, you can jiggle thresholds. Its a barrier to productivity and growth to have people refusing to take a payrise to just over £100k, instead doing less hours, longer holidays, etc. But 90% of the country won't care. It looks very out of touch.
Daisy Cooper said she was going to review IR35 and the loan charge stuff on QT last night. Which also won't matter to 90% of the country, but I'd guess would be more relevant like the £100k threshold in the south-east.
Loan charge is dead, it should have been paid on April 6th 2019 and would be impossible to reverse.
IR35 - let me show you £65bn reasons why it can’t be reversed and £20bn of those are fairly instant because any agency based work would be outside the day the law changed to allow their prices to be cut 20%
The £100k issue is fiscal drag in action if it had been increased with inflation it would be £150,000 or so and would impact way fewer people
Current zeitgeist is: (1) wages haven't kept up with prices, and people resent both the government and anyone earning more than them who they perceive has it a bit easier (2) they're therefore happy for anyone earning a bit more than them to pay punitive tax (3) they hate the poor performance and outcomes of public services and project delivery in this country and (4) they wish it could be better and to do so without much higher immigration
The job of politicians is to empathise with and understand that, and recognising some of that is in conflict, explain why (2) needs to be modified to help deliver (3) and (4) and how they have a plan/solution that delivers (1) in the medium-term.
Instead what they do is try and kow-tow to all four at once and pretend they can fix it all exactly how they'd like it.
Then, when they inevitably fail, earn universal contempt.
A good friend of mine is a very senior forensic psychiatrist employed by the Home Office/cops from time to time. As a consultant. He’s known to be brilliant
He’s personally reviewed the Letby case and he’s fairly sure she is innocent - not convinced, but he certainly has reasonable doubt
I have no dog in this fight. I assumed the conviction was watertight. He told me this over lunch just before Xmas. Disturbing"
Why would a forensic psychiatrist be able to assess evidence about how premature babies died?
The evidence against Letby was not based on her psychiatric state but on the non-natural causes of the deaths and that Letby was the only nurse who was present at the relevant times.
I've seen a number of middle aged men unwilling to believe Letby's guilt. They see the image of the pretty blond nurse holding up a babygro and forget that a jury sat through months of evidence to reach their conclusions.
Every wrong conviction involves a jury.
Quite (except technically there's also magistrates). The argument you are replying to kept Paula going for a decade.
A lot of the subbies were so bullied and betrayed they didn't get as far as a jury. Just admitted something of which they were not guilty, and went to court to be sentenced.
BREAKING: Sunak is going to take a day off the trail tomorrow in a highly unusual move so early in the campaign. He will spend it at home in talks with his senior aides. But the Tories insist this is NOT a campaign relaunch.
No wonder we have a productivity problem in the UK when the top boss doesn't work overtime at a crucial time.
Time spent planning is usually time well spent, but surely the time should have been taken last weekend?
I’m sure planning has been done prior to kickoff. It’s a Bank Holiday weekend I can forgive Sunak wanting to take a day to firm up some of the details of the campaign plan and possibly to get some decent time with his wife and children before the full onslaught. I hope Keir and Ed Davey avail themselves of similar opportunities.
I hope the press get bored with trying to turn everything Rishi does into some new gaffe.
Back in the real world, the first days of Rishi's campaign have seen gaffe after gaffe so it is not surprising he will take a day off to reset. As I said earlier, this has been 2017 redux so kudos to Rishi for realising things are going pear-shaped and trying to address that.
I tbink the gaffes have been overdone by the journalists, but Sunak doesn't seem to have anything to announce. He is pottering around making these visits with nothing really to say other than weird small talk and softball questions. There are no policies.
Starmer isn’t exactly heavy on policies either. That’s entirely understandable at this point in the election. The gaffe narrative is overblown but then journalists often try to fit the facts into the narrative rather than allowing the narrative to flow from the facts. Now that wash up is over and Parliament stands prorogued the campaign will ramp up. I just hope the media decides to get bored with the current game.
Weirdly Hunt is in the Telegraph today giving some policy, saying he will end the cliffedge at £100k. Now it is actually right to thing to do and can be done without costing money, you can jiggle thresholds. Its a barrier to productivity and growth to have people refusing to take a payrise to just over £100k, instead doing less hours, longer holidays, etc. But 90% of the country won't care. It looks very out of touch.
Ok, good, and I'm sort of like: why the fuck hasn't that been addressed over the last 14 years?
It's just the sort of thing that Tory governments are meant to sort out.
There's so much shithouse gesture politics these days, devoid of substance or logic, and that applies to all the political parties who chase soundbites, memes, and the chance to piss over each other rather than sensible long-term decisions.
Well yes. For 14 years they have been dicking about for instance over IC + NI. They could have sorted that, combined them, sorted out the thresholds etc.
But again its symptom of politicians won't take difficult decisions that might have losers / be unpopular in the short term.
Cf Council Tax banding
I was always surprised that Lib Dems in coalition didn't demand local income tax as replacement for council tax (as was their policy for 2010).
Vetoed by the Tories.
They could, and should have been more carefully selective and more insistent in their demands. Given later history, I suspect Clegg was simply more interested in what ministerial post he could occupy.
AV was indeed a mistake, since it didn’t even much appeal to those who support PR.
What title Clegg had, you mean, the meaningless Deputy Prime Minister tag. The great offices of state and the largest spending departments stayed in Conservative hands.
Why are the Tories talking about unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy? Do they think it’s an electoral win to resurrect Trussonomics? They should steer well clear from bold taxation moves. It undermines the core offer of Sunak and Hunt.
Such a confusing message.
£100k cliffedge is easy to change without costing anything. You can just change thresholds.
Bad optics. They should steer well clear.
Fuck the optics. The £100k cliffedge is a disaster that has serious real-world economic and productivity impacts.
The fact that everything in politics is about "optics" is one of our biggest problems.
Real leaders lead.
This was a party political broadcast by the Liz Truss Party.
Again, a silly little remark trying to play it for laughs rather than engage in the substance.
Even Nick Palmer ex-MP - who is pretty left-wing, let's remember - agrees this is an issue and regrets his part in bringing it in. Which was also about "optics".
Truss didn't propose to remove the 100k tax trap. It's one of the biggest marks against her 6 weeks in office, because she was also going for "optics" but of a different kind.
Politics is all about priorities and context. Making a feature of tax thresholds for the well off (however poorly designed) is not good politics today. It’s the sort of thing you do in budgets not election campaigns. You have to care about how policies are interpreted. As soon as you say 100k you’re on the defensive having to explain it.
It should be a priority. We elect our politicians to understand public opinion and then to lead it in the best interests of the country. Lots of people are now deliberately choosing jobs or working hours to avoid this tax-trap and it's sapping our productivity as a result. Even I've thought about giving up at times as I'm right in the middle of it.
On the "well-off" point here's one for you: the 2009 budget introduced the 100k cliff edge from April 2010, just before that election. That's 100k in 2010 pounds.
Do you know what that's worth today, inflation-adjusted for 2024?
£65,000.
A figure that most voters would dream of, that’s your political problem. Take a look at the household income distribution if you do not believe me.
Somewhere along the line conservatives forgot how to do politics. You need people to vote for you.
No, a level that many civil servants, GPs, consultants, head teachers, solicitors, businessmen and professionals now easily reach - they'd laugh at you calling them super-rich. You are hitting the successful middle-class.
But, your comment is very revealing.
It's very clear that under a Labour government your taxes will only be going in one direction: up.
1) They're not 'many people.'
2) Under *any* government our taxes are going to have to go up, thanks to two decades of profligacy and mismanagement. Unless we want to end up like Venezuela.
They are many people and remember that all will have started their careers at average salaries and only reach that level after many decades of hard work to do demanding jobs that yield rewards for just a few years in part of their career.
The country relies on that professional leadership to enhance its performance and productivity and thus outcomes in healthcare, education, and efficient delivery of important projects and services in both the public and private sector. We moan about outcomes and difficulties of getting more talent and there's a direct link.
Ludicrous taxation - which seemingly can't be changed because of "optics" - is just a illustration of the paucity of analysis, thinking and courage that exists in our politics today.
They are around 4% of the population. Not the majority or even an especially large minority.
Civil Servants seem to me to be rank amateurs half the time. I wouldn't pay Case, Acland-Hood, Wormald minimum wage to run an Aldi.
I've also seen several leaders in education unfit to run a whelk stall.
As for GPs, well, they're a mixed bag.
As we are seeing with the Horizon inquiry, there are many people of at most average ability rising to the top through a combination of luck, good connections and in some cases a willingness to cover up the crimes of others. I'm not seeing convincing evidence that getting rid of them would make a material difference to our country's prospects.
Why are the Tories talking about unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy? Do they think it’s an electoral win to resurrect Trussonomics? They should steer well clear from bold taxation moves. It undermines the core offer of Sunak and Hunt.
Such a confusing message.
£100k cliffedge is easy to change without costing anything. You can just change thresholds.
Bad optics. They should steer well clear.
Fuck the optics. The £100k cliffedge is a disaster that has serious real-world economic and productivity impacts.
The fact that everything in politics is about "optics" is one of our biggest problems.
Real leaders lead.
This was a party political broadcast by the Liz Truss Party.
Again, a silly little remark trying to play it for laughs rather than engage in the substance.
Even Nick Palmer ex-MP - who is pretty left-wing, let's remember - agrees this is an issue and regrets his part in bringing it in. Which was also about "optics".
Truss didn't propose to remove the 100k tax trap. It's one of the biggest marks against her 6 weeks in office, because she was also going for "optics" but of a different kind.
Politics is all about priorities and context. Making a feature of tax thresholds for the well off (however poorly designed) is not good politics today. It’s the sort of thing you do in budgets not election campaigns. You have to care about how policies are interpreted. As soon as you say 100k you’re on the defensive having to explain it.
It should be a priority. We elect our politicians to understand public opinion and then to lead it in the best interests of the country. Lots of people are now deliberately choosing jobs or working hours to avoid this tax-trap and it's sapping our productivity as a result. Even I've thought about giving up at times as I'm right in the middle of it.
On the "well-off" point here's one for you: the 2009 budget introduced the 100k cliff edge from April 2010, just before that election. That's 100k in 2010 pounds.
Do you know what that's worth today, inflation-adjusted for 2024?
£65,000.
A figure that most voters would dream of, that’s your political problem. Take a look at the household income distribution if you do not believe me.
Somewhere along the line conservatives forgot how to do politics. You need people to vote for you.
No, a level that many civil servants, GPs, consultants, head teachers, solicitors, businessmen and professionals now easily reach - they'd laugh at you calling them super-rich. You are hitting the successful middle-class.
But, your comment is very revealing.
It's very clear that under a Labour government your taxes will only be going in one direction: up.
Check out where a salary of 100k puts you on the income distribution. You’ll be surprised.
Now a salary of 65k.
Labour = taxes up
You may have missed what the Tories have done to taxation.
Taxation levels will go up whichever party is elected. I would prefer they are targeted at people like me (and I assume you) who are in the top 5%.
I would particularly like to see those who get away with tax avoidance through such things as non-dom, unearned income, treating income as capital gains, various trust schemes etc. - these people should pay an equal share as those who like you are working for a living.
I'd go after the ex-pats too, with a UK FATCA. You want to be a British Citizen? Then pay the UK tax rates.
Why are the Tories talking about unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy? Do they think it’s an electoral win to resurrect Trussonomics? They should steer well clear from bold taxation moves. It undermines the core offer of Sunak and Hunt.
Such a confusing message.
£100k cliffedge is easy to change without costing anything. You can just change thresholds.
Bad optics. They should steer well clear.
Fuck the optics. The £100k cliffedge is a disaster that has serious real-world economic and productivity impacts.
The fact that everything in politics is about "optics" is one of our biggest problems.
Real leaders lead.
This was a party political broadcast by the Liz Truss Party.
Again, a silly little remark trying to play it for laughs rather than engage in the substance.
Even Nick Palmer ex-MP - who is pretty left-wing, let's remember - agrees this is an issue and regrets his part in bringing it in. Which was also about "optics".
Truss didn't propose to remove the 100k tax trap. It's one of the biggest marks against her 6 weeks in office, because she was also going for "optics" but of a different kind.
Politics is all about priorities and context. Making a feature of tax thresholds for the well off (however poorly designed) is not good politics today. It’s the sort of thing you do in budgets not election campaigns. You have to care about how policies are interpreted. As soon as you say 100k you’re on the defensive having to explain it.
It should be a priority. We elect our politicians to understand public opinion and then to lead it in the best interests of the country. Lots of people are now deliberately choosing jobs or working hours to avoid this tax-trap and it's sapping our productivity as a result. Even I've thought about giving up at times as I'm right in the middle of it.
On the "well-off" point here's one for you: the 2009 budget introduced the 100k cliff edge from April 2010, just before that election. That's 100k in 2010 pounds.
Do you know what that's worth today, inflation-adjusted for 2024?
£65,000.
Personally, from an ideological pov I am comfortable with a higher rate of taxation. You aren’t. That’s fine - we can disagree from principled, evidenced standpoints and moral positions.
But the question here isn’t so much ‘tax good/bad’ as tbh more of a functional one about thresholds keeping pace with inflation - similar really to the child benefit threshold. So I agree with you.
Why are the Tories talking about unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy? Do they think it’s an electoral win to resurrect Trussonomics? They should steer well clear from bold taxation moves. It undermines the core offer of Sunak and Hunt.
Such a confusing message.
£100k cliffedge is easy to change without costing anything. You can just change thresholds.
Bad optics. They should steer well clear.
Fuck the optics. The £100k cliffedge is a disaster that has serious real-world economic and productivity impacts.
The fact that everything in politics is about "optics" is one of our biggest problems.
Real leaders lead.
This was a party political broadcast by the Liz Truss Party.
Again, a silly little remark trying to play it for laughs rather than engage in the substance.
Even Nick Palmer ex-MP - who is pretty left-wing, let's remember - agrees this is an issue and regrets his part in bringing it in. Which was also about "optics".
Truss didn't propose to remove the 100k tax trap. It's one of the biggest marks against her 6 weeks in office, because she was also going for "optics" but of a different kind.
Politics is all about priorities and context. Making a feature of tax thresholds for the well off (however poorly designed) is not good politics today. It’s the sort of thing you do in budgets not election campaigns. You have to care about how policies are interpreted. As soon as you say 100k you’re on the defensive having to explain it.
It should be a priority. We elect our politicians to understand public opinion and then to lead it in the best interests of the country. Lots of people are now deliberately choosing jobs or working hours to avoid this tax-trap and it's sapping our productivity as a result. Even I've thought about giving up at times as I'm right in the middle of it.
On the "well-off" point here's one for you: the 2009 budget introduced the 100k cliff edge from April 2010, just before that election. That's 100k in 2010 pounds.
Do you know what that's worth today, inflation-adjusted for 2024?
£65,000.
A figure that most voters would dream of, that’s your political problem. Take a look at the household income distribution if you do not believe me.
Somewhere along the line conservatives forgot how to do politics. You need people to vote for you.
No, a level that many civil servants, GPs, consultants, head teachers, solicitors, businessmen and professionals now easily reach - they'd laugh at you calling them super-rich. You are hitting the successful middle-class.
But, your comment is very revealing.
It's very clear that under a Labour government your taxes will only be going in one direction: up.
Check out where a salary of 100k puts you on the income distribution. You’ll be surprised.
Now a salary of 65k.
Labour = taxes up
Believe it or not I’m trying to help you. There was a time when Tories used to have political antennae. Suggest you look back at the thresholds Cameron used to talk about.
Oh well.
Are the Tories going to the country on their record on low taxes? Seriously? You really want to go there?
My taxation will certainly be less under a Conservative administration than a Labour one.
If you vote Labour you should be really clear what you're voting for: even higher taxes for you and your family.
For anybody who is struggling to get by, especially those on dangerously low wages like eight grand per month, you can eat a healthy, nutritious meal for around 30p if you shop around. If that's still a struggle, you aren't alone. I can give you details for your local food bank, and you can contact me privately if you don't want to speak up in front of everyone. Remember, it's not your fault and you aren't alone. You'll get through this.
On voting ages: As a man I can say this: I would not be entirely opposed to a lower voting age for women than men. (I understand that is entirely impractical in any nation that I respect, but I also recognize that women grow up sooner than men -- on the average.)
(FWIW, the state of Illinois once had a lower drinking age (18) for women than men (21).)
Why are the Tories talking about unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy? Do they think it’s an electoral win to resurrect Trussonomics? They should steer well clear from bold taxation moves. It undermines the core offer of Sunak and Hunt.
Such a confusing message.
£100k cliffedge is easy to change without costing anything. You can just change thresholds.
Bad optics. They should steer well clear.
Fuck the optics. The £100k cliffedge is a disaster that has serious real-world economic and productivity impacts.
The fact that everything in politics is about "optics" is one of our biggest problems.
Real leaders lead.
This was a party political broadcast by the Liz Truss Party.
Again, a silly little remark trying to play it for laughs rather than engage in the substance.
Even Nick Palmer ex-MP - who is pretty left-wing, let's remember - agrees this is an issue and regrets his part in bringing it in. Which was also about "optics".
Truss didn't propose to remove the 100k tax trap. It's one of the biggest marks against her 6 weeks in office, because she was also going for "optics" but of a different kind.
Politics is all about priorities and context. Making a feature of tax thresholds for the well off (however poorly designed) is not good politics today. It’s the sort of thing you do in budgets not election campaigns. You have to care about how policies are interpreted. As soon as you say 100k you’re on the defensive having to explain it.
It should be a priority. We elect our politicians to understand public opinion and then to lead it in the best interests of the country. Lots of people are now deliberately choosing jobs or working hours to avoid this tax-trap and it's sapping our productivity as a result. Even I've thought about giving up at times as I'm right in the middle of it.
On the "well-off" point here's one for you: the 2009 budget introduced the 100k cliff edge from April 2010, just before that election. That's 100k in 2010 pounds.
Do you know what that's worth today, inflation-adjusted for 2024?
£65,000.
A figure that most voters would dream of, that’s your political problem. Take a look at the household income distribution if you do not believe me.
Somewhere along the line conservatives forgot how to do politics. You need people to vote for you.
No, a level that many civil servants, GPs, consultants, head teachers, solicitors, businessmen and professionals now easily reach - they'd laugh at you calling them super-rich. You are hitting the successful middle-class.
But, your comment is very revealing.
It's very clear that under a Labour government your taxes will only be going in one direction: up.
Check out where a salary of 100k puts you on the income distribution. You’ll be surprised.
The cost of scrapping the disallowance of the personal allowance and replacing with the additional threshold at £100,000 (The nearest cleaning up) would be £15 per £100 earnt to a maximum of £3771. The far bigger cliff edge is childcare at that salary level.
It's both. My wife is on £107k (only got there in the last 10 months) and the very strong advice she's had is to throw all the threshold surfeit into her pension asap.
Worth noting that also has a macro-effect on both tax revenues to the government now and current consumption.
Why are the Tories talking about unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy? Do they think it’s an electoral win to resurrect Trussonomics? They should steer well clear from bold taxation moves. It undermines the core offer of Sunak and Hunt.
Such a confusing message.
£100k cliffedge is easy to change without costing anything. You can just change thresholds.
Bad optics. They should steer well clear.
Fuck the optics. The £100k cliffedge is a disaster that has serious real-world economic and productivity impacts.
The fact that everything in politics is about "optics" is one of our biggest problems.
Real leaders lead.
This was a party political broadcast by the Liz Truss Party.
Again, a silly little remark trying to play it for laughs rather than engage in the substance.
Even Nick Palmer ex-MP - who is pretty left-wing, let's remember - agrees this is an issue and regrets his part in bringing it in. Which was also about "optics".
Truss didn't propose to remove the 100k tax trap. It's one of the biggest marks against her 6 weeks in office, because she was also going for "optics" but of a different kind.
Politics is all about priorities and context. Making a feature of tax thresholds for the well off (however poorly designed) is not good politics today. It’s the sort of thing you do in budgets not election campaigns. You have to care about how policies are interpreted. As soon as you say 100k you’re on the defensive having to explain it.
It should be a priority. We elect our politicians to understand public opinion and then to lead it in the best interests of the country. Lots of people are now deliberately choosing jobs or working hours to avoid this tax-trap and it's sapping our productivity as a result. Even I've thought about giving up at times as I'm right in the middle of it.
On the "well-off" point here's one for you: the 2009 budget introduced the 100k cliff edge from April 2010, just before that election. That's 100k in 2010 pounds.
Do you know what that's worth today, inflation-adjusted for 2024?
£65,000.
A figure that most voters would dream of, that’s your political problem. Take a look at the household income distribution if you do not believe me.
Somewhere along the line conservatives forgot how to do politics. You need people to vote for you.
No, a level that many civil servants, GPs, consultants, head teachers, solicitors, businessmen and professionals now easily reach - they'd laugh at you calling them super-rich. You are hitting the successful middle-class.
But, your comment is very revealing.
It's very clear that under a Labour government your taxes will only be going in one direction: up.
Check out where a salary of 100k puts you on the income distribution. You’ll be surprised.
Now a salary of 65k.
Labour = taxes up
You may have missed what the Tories have done to taxation.
Taxation levels will go up whichever party is elected. I would prefer they are targeted at people like me (and I assume you) who are in the top 5%.
I would particularly like to see those who get away with tax avoidance through such things as non-dom, unearned income, treating income as capital gains, various trust schemes etc. - these people should pay an equal share as those who like you are working for a living.
I'd go after the ex-pats too, with a UK FATCA. You want to be a British Citizen? Then pay the UK tax rates.
No, spending and taxation will certainly be higher under a Labour government than a Conservative one.
Why are the Tories talking about unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy? Do they think it’s an electoral win to resurrect Trussonomics? They should steer well clear from bold taxation moves. It undermines the core offer of Sunak and Hunt.
Such a confusing message.
£100k cliffedge is easy to change without costing anything. You can just change thresholds.
Bad optics. They should steer well clear.
Fuck the optics. The £100k cliffedge is a disaster that has serious real-world economic and productivity impacts.
The fact that everything in politics is about "optics" is one of our biggest problems.
Real leaders lead.
This was a party political broadcast by the Liz Truss Party.
Again, a silly little remark trying to play it for laughs rather than engage in the substance.
Even Nick Palmer ex-MP - who is pretty left-wing, let's remember - agrees this is an issue and regrets his part in bringing it in. Which was also about "optics".
Truss didn't propose to remove the 100k tax trap. It's one of the biggest marks against her 6 weeks in office, because she was also going for "optics" but of a different kind.
Politics is all about priorities and context. Making a feature of tax thresholds for the well off (however poorly designed) is not good politics today. It’s the sort of thing you do in budgets not election campaigns. You have to care about how policies are interpreted. As soon as you say 100k you’re on the defensive having to explain it.
It should be a priority. We elect our politicians to understand public opinion and then to lead it in the best interests of the country. Lots of people are now deliberately choosing jobs or working hours to avoid this tax-trap and it's sapping our productivity as a result. Even I've thought about giving up at times as I'm right in the middle of it.
On the "well-off" point here's one for you: the 2009 budget introduced the 100k cliff edge from April 2010, just before that election. That's 100k in 2010 pounds.
Do you know what that's worth today, inflation-adjusted for 2024?
£65,000.
Personally, from an ideological pov I am comfortable with a higher rate of taxation. You aren’t. That’s fine - we can disagree from principled, evidenced standpoints and moral positions.
But the question here isn’t so much ‘tax good/bad’ as tbh more of a functional one about thresholds keeping pace with inflation - similar really to the child benefit threshold. So I agree with you.
Using YouGov numbers from their megapoll, Westminster constituency data from the England and Wales census, and assuming no variation by constituency and that the age distribution of an electorate accounts for 100%* of the vote share, you can put together a rudimentary projection for the election.
This finds that Labour would win every single seat in England and Wales. This is even the case after adjusting for differential turnout, with younger people less likely to vote. The closest the Conservatives would come is in Isle of Wight East, but Labour would still have a 7,000 vote majority. The biggest Labour win would be in Poplar and Limehouse, at 26,000.
This is obviously nonsense, with Labour winning much larger majorities in 2019 (eg Knowsley at 40,000). But it does show the basic demographics are a major weakness for the Conservatives, with other factors like housing tenure and perhaps even the culture war what will bag them their constituencies. It suggests that these other factors differentiate constituencies rather than bring them closer together.
I also looked at the left/right wing split, adding Reform to the Tory vote and Green to the Labour vote. Labour still wins every seat, but it’s much closer. For example, Christchurch has a left wing lead of only 1,700 in this age-based projection. Older people voting for Reform is disaster for the Conservatives, while younger people voting Green is only an inconvenience for Labour.
I’ll post some more fatuous analysis based on employment status and housing tenure over the next couple of days.
*I’ve previously worked out that age distribution accounts for only around 40% of Tory vote share in Westminster constituencies.
This is why pollsters use weights, to adjust for differential turnout (and the fact that people lie to pollsters ).
I can't imagine what, on the way to the police station, anyone could be thinking which would make them vote for the Conservatives. Which policy or initiative would they think gives hope for a better future. What do they think would improve in their lives which another Conservative government would bring about. To say nothing of the fact that with all the MPs not standing no one knows what they would actually be voting for.
That said, the swing is ginormous plus the more an extinction event is called for the more nervous voters will become. I think 50-100 maj is about right.
I can't imagine what, on the way to the police station, anyone could be thinking which would make them vote for the Conservatives. Which policy or initiative would they think gives hope for a better future. What do they think would improve in their lives which another Conservative government would bring about. To say nothing of the fact that with all the MPs not standing no one knows what they would actually be voting for.
That said, the swing is ginormous plus the more an extinction event is called for the more nervous voters will become. I think 50-100 maj is about right.
Me. I don't want a government vindictive towards the 'wrong' identity groups, the private sector or that pursues obsessive regulation or taxation.
I can't imagine what, on the way to the police station, anyone could be thinking which would make them vote for the Conservatives. Which policy or initiative would they think gives hope for a better future. What do they think would improve in their lives which another Conservative government would bring about. To say nothing of the fact that with all the MPs not standing no one knows what they would actually be voting for.
That said, the swing is ginormous plus the more an extinction event is called for the more nervous voters will become. I think 50-100 maj is about right.
Me. I don't want a government vindictive towards the 'wrong' identity groups, the private sector or that pursues obsessive regulation or taxation.
A post inviting a reply that’s so obvious, it isn’t worth the effort.
BREAKING: Sunak is going to take a day off the trail tomorrow in a highly unusual move so early in the campaign. He will spend it at home in talks with his senior aides. But the Tories insist this is NOT a campaign relaunch.
No wonder we have a productivity problem in the UK when the top boss doesn't work overtime at a crucial time.
Time spent planning is usually time well spent, but surely the time should have been taken last weekend?
I’m sure planning has been done prior to kickoff. It’s a Bank Holiday weekend I can forgive Sunak wanting to take a day to firm up some of the details of the campaign plan and possibly to get some decent time with his wife and children before the full onslaught. I hope Keir and Ed Davey avail themselves of similar opportunities.
I hope the press get bored with trying to turn everything Rishi does into some new gaffe.
Back in the real world, the first days of Rishi's campaign have seen gaffe after gaffe so it is not surprising he will take a day off to reset. As I said earlier, this has been 2017 redux so kudos to Rishi for realising things are going pear-shaped and trying to address that.
I tbink the gaffes have been overdone by the journalists, but Sunak doesn't seem to have anything to announce. He is pottering around making these visits with nothing really to say other than weird small talk and softball questions. There are no policies.
Starmer isn’t exactly heavy on policies either. That’s entirely understandable at this point in the election. The gaffe narrative is overblown but then journalists often try to fit the facts into the narrative rather than allowing the narrative to flow from the facts. Now that wash up is over and Parliament stands prorogued the campaign will ramp up. I just hope the media decides to get bored with the current game.
Weirdly Hunt is in the Telegraph today giving some policy, saying he will end the cliffedge at £100k. Now it is actually right to thing to do and can be done without costing money, you can jiggle thresholds. Its a barrier to productivity and growth to have people refusing to take a payrise to just over £100k, instead doing less hours, longer holidays, etc. But 90% of the country won't care. It looks very out of touch.
Ok, good, and I'm sort of like: why the fuck hasn't that been addressed over the last 14 years?
It's just the sort of thing that Tory governments are meant to sort out.
There's so much shithouse gesture politics these days, devoid of substance or logic, and that applies to all the political parties who chase soundbites, memes, and the chance to piss over each other rather than sensible long-term decisions.
Well yes. For 14 years they have been dicking about for instance over IC + NI. They could have sorted that, combined them, sorted out the thresholds etc.
But again its symptom of politicians won't take difficult decisions that might have losers / be unpopular in the short term.
Cf Council Tax banding
I was always surprised that Lib Dems in coalition didn't demand local income tax as replacement for council tax (as was their policy for 2010).
Don't you think Cameron managed the LDs beautifully? They were so high on their own supply that they capitulated over tuition fees in exchange for a half-hearted referendum on AV (an voting system they weren't too keen on anyway).
One story was that the Conservative negotiators were surprised to find their LibDem counterparts did not even know what was in their own manifesto.
Certainly not as well as Hague and Osborne did. I think that they had lived so long on the basis that it didn't really matter what they promised that the reality of government was a bit of a shock.
But they made some excellent contributions to the Coalition. They talked the Tories into backing the NMW in a big way, the introduced the pupil premium, they did really good work on pensions and they encouraged a focus on increasing the PA rather than cutting taxes for the wealthy. Not a bad effort at all for a minority party, they should have been proud of it, not ashamed.
They were however responsible for the PO at a crucial period. Bad luck really. They were holding the parcel when the music stopped.
It was unlucky but making the minister holding the parcel their leader was inspired.
Why are the Tories talking about unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy? Do they think it’s an electoral win to resurrect Trussonomics? They should steer well clear from bold taxation moves. It undermines the core offer of Sunak and Hunt.
Such a confusing message.
£100k cliffedge is easy to change without costing anything. You can just change thresholds.
Bad optics. They should steer well clear.
Fuck the optics. The £100k cliffedge is a disaster that has serious real-world economic and productivity impacts.
The fact that everything in politics is about "optics" is one of our biggest problems.
Real leaders lead.
This was a party political broadcast by the Liz Truss Party.
Again, a silly little remark trying to play it for laughs rather than engage in the substance.
Even Nick Palmer ex-MP - who is pretty left-wing, let's remember - agrees this is an issue and regrets his part in bringing it in. Which was also about "optics".
Truss didn't propose to remove the 100k tax trap. It's one of the biggest marks against her 6 weeks in office, because she was also going for "optics" but of a different kind.
Politics is all about priorities and context. Making a feature of tax thresholds for the well off (however poorly designed) is not good politics today. It’s the sort of thing you do in budgets not election campaigns. You have to care about how policies are interpreted. As soon as you say 100k you’re on the defensive having to explain it.
It should be a priority. We elect our politicians to understand public opinion and then to lead it in the best interests of the country. Lots of people are now deliberately choosing jobs or working hours to avoid this tax-trap and it's sapping our productivity as a result. Even I've thought about giving up at times as I'm right in the middle of it.
On the "well-off" point here's one for you: the 2009 budget introduced the 100k cliff edge from April 2010, just before that election. That's 100k in 2010 pounds.
Do you know what that's worth today, inflation-adjusted for 2024?
£65,000.
A figure that most voters would dream of, that’s your political problem. Take a look at the household income distribution if you do not believe me.
Somewhere along the line conservatives forgot how to do politics. You need people to vote for you.
No, a level that many civil servants, GPs, consultants, head teachers, solicitors, businessmen and professionals now easily reach - they'd laugh at you calling them super-rich. You are hitting the successful middle-class.
But, your comment is very revealing.
It's very clear that under a Labour government your taxes will only be going in one direction: up.
Check out where a salary of 100k puts you on the income distribution. You’ll be surprised.
Now a salary of 65k.
Labour = taxes up
Believe it or not I’m trying to help you. There was a time when Tories used to have political antennae. Suggest you look back at the thresholds Cameron used to talk about.
Oh well.
Are the Tories going to the country on their record on low taxes? Seriously? You really want to go there?
This reminds me of a half remembered quote I think I recall hearing in a Scottish accent concerning the Conservatives:
"Tread the earth down" (presumably on their political grave, or perhaps a reaction to the death of Thatcher.).
Comments
But they made some excellent contributions to the Coalition. They talked the Tories into backing the NMW in a big way, the introduced the pupil premium, they did really good work on pensions and they encouraged a focus on increasing the PA rather than cutting taxes for the wealthy. Not a bad effort at all for a minority party, they should have been proud of it, not ashamed.
Unless YoUGov have altered their methodology, that's a pretty decent poll for the Tories. Best news they've had for a while. It could maybe be an early sign of pollsters 'crowding' as the GE approaches, or maybe people are just not that interested in it and that's reflected in some reversion to type.
I don't suppose we'll get more polls over the weekend, and next week's results should be more meaningful, but meanwhile it's something to cheer Sunak after a damp start to the campaign.
Where, as we are seeing now, they were also 100% right in calling it out as a terrible idea, before they foolishly supported it.
You look now at all three 3 parties top teams and they are very weak once you get past the top 3-4 people.
Somewhere along the line conservatives forgot how to do politics. You need people to vote for you.
But, your comment is very revealing.
It's very clear that under a Labour government your taxes will only be going in one direction: up.
The cost of keeping slaves in line was measured in brutality, rather than cash (though it was a highly inefficient economic system for everyone but the rich), and you could correctly argue that tended to increase as a result. That might have been a contributory factor to rendering it unacceptable to the north.
Hopefully Starmer has a five and ten year strategic outlook and is willing to make choices with poor optics that are necessary in order to be able to go back to the electorate with Reagan’s crucial question likely to be answered in the affirmitive.
IR35 - let me show you £65bn reasons why it can’t be reversed and £20bn of those are fairly instant because any agency based work would be outside the day the law changed to allow their prices to be cut 20%
The £100k issue is fiscal drag in action if it had been increased with inflation it would be £150,000 or so and would impact way fewer people
2) Under *any* government our taxes are going to have to go up, thanks to two decades of profligacy and mismanagement. Unless we want to end up like Venezuela.
It experienced defeat after defeat during the revolutionary wars.
AV was indeed a mistake, since it didn’t even much appeal to those who support PR.
The country relies on that professional leadership to enhance its performance and productivity and thus outcomes in healthcare, education, and efficient delivery of important projects and services in both the public and private sector. We moan about outcomes and difficulties of getting more talent and there's a direct link.
Ludicrous taxation - which seemingly can't be changed because of "optics" - is just a illustration of the paucity of analysis, thinking and courage that exists in our politics today.
Labour = taxes up
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=Y&CON=22&LAB=44&LIB=11&Reform=14&Green=5&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=14.7&SCOTLAB=37.1&SCOTLIB=7.7&SCOTReform=3.5&SCOTGreen=3.8&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=30.5&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2019nbbase
Oh well.
Are the Tories going to the country on their record on low taxes? Seriously? You really want to go there?
There seemed to be a change of zeitgeist midway through the campaign which was very strange. I was going to be out of the country on election day and though I would probably have voted Corbyn if I'd been here I didn't particularly like him or dislike her.
But something happened during the last couple of weeks that made me strongly want her to lose. She suddenly became the the 'Nasty Tory' she had warned us about years earlier. Unfortunately I cant remember what she did but I made sure I voted.
Civil Servants seem to me to be rank amateurs half the time. I wouldn't pay Case, Acland-Hood, Wormald minimum wage to run an Aldi.
I've also seen several leaders in education unfit to run a whelk stall.
As for GPs, well, they're a mixed bag.
As we are seeing with the Horizon inquiry, there are many people of at most average ability rising to the top through a combination of luck, good connections and in some cases a willingness to cover up the crimes of others. I'm not seeing convincing evidence that getting rid of them would make a material difference to our country's prospects.
I was talking to an academic at a top university the other day and they said they are really struggling to get PhD students. I said Brexit? And he said, a bit, but stipend is the biggest problem. Its £18.5k outside of London. They said when they did their PhD their stipend in todays money would be £27k. Up until 3 years ago, yes stipends had fallen behind, I think they said it would have been about £20k in 2018 money, but equivalent of £7k inflated away.
Same with post-docs, their money is £20k below what it used to be in real times from 20 years ago.
The job of politicians is to empathise with and understand that, and recognising some of that is in conflict, explain why (2) needs to be modified to help deliver (3) and (4) and how they have a plan/solution that delivers (1) in the medium-term.
Instead what they do is try and kow-tow to all four at once and pretend they can fix it all exactly how they'd like it.
Then, when they inevitably fail, earn universal contempt.
NEW THREAD
Taxation levels will go up whichever party is elected. I would prefer they are targeted at people like me (and I assume you) who are in the top 5%.
I would particularly like to see those who get away with tax avoidance through such things as non-dom, unearned income, treating income as capital gains, various trust schemes etc. - these people should pay an equal share as those who like you are working for a living.
I'd go after the ex-pats too, with a UK FATCA. You want to be a British Citizen? Then pay the UK tax rates.
What a snowflake!
But the question here isn’t so much ‘tax good/bad’ as tbh more of a functional one about thresholds keeping pace with inflation - similar really to the child benefit threshold. So I agree with you.
If you vote Labour you should be really clear what you're voting for: even higher taxes for you and your family.
Worth noting that also has a macro-effect on both tax revenues to the government now and current consumption.
It's what you do
That said, the swing is ginormous plus the more an extinction event is called for the more nervous voters will become. I think 50-100 maj is about right.
"Tread the earth down" (presumably on their political grave, or perhaps a reaction to the death of Thatcher.).
Was it Galloway? What was the context?