politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Next Tory Leader betting

taffys said:

How about thatcher?
You know, when we had higher income tax, nationalised rail and a hedge fund free nhs?

If I remember correctly taxation was 83% (actually maybe higher? in the 90s?) when Denis Healey was chancellor in 1976. The same year the UK went cap in hand to the IMF for a Greek/Argentina style financial bailout because we were bankrupt.

But hey, don;t let facts get in the way of your socialist fantasy.

My grandfather used to pay 106% income tax under Healey: 83% + 15% unearned income supplement + 8% supplement for income generated from land

PClipp said:

nigel4england said:

That will be the same Boy George that has done a superb job of getting the country back into growth without causing mass unemployment?

I thought it was the Lib Dems who did that.

All Osborn was interested in was cutting taxes on the super-rich.

For what you say to be true, that would require the LibDems to be in Coalition Govt. Now that can't be right, or we would have heard them claiming credit for stuff, rather than criticising everything the Govt has done for the past five years.....

Might as well throw this open to the field.
When does tax evasion stop being illegal for an individual or company?

Cyclefree said:

Me too. But enough with the self-defence. We need to go on the offensive against these barbarians.

Hmmm,

Who are these "barbarians": They are just the result of our post-history approach to governance or a correction of the facts? There are historical incidents - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing - that still pees me off!

Now I will play my hand openly: Never done anything but. As an Englishman of Cypriot [Turk] and Irish parentage I struggle to understand how some acts are good and t'others are bad. Murder is (or was, before the Neue-Arbeiter Jockanese screwed 'Double-Jepardy') clear cut: A year-and-a-day of death.*

So who should we punish? Should it be collective?

I have as much tolerance for Islam as I do for the Muslim prat who claims to be a sub-editor (Scots-born plastice-Yorkshireman). That said; I do not wish ill on his family (and I am sure he would not on my - connected, and slightly deranged - family).

As an Englishman I wish to offer the Jewish community all the protection that the law can provide. I am sure that the Jewish community will echo that sentiment. What we cannot tolerate is a witch-hunt of those whom oppose us: Two wrongs never make a right (or, an eye for an eye leaves us all blind).

Life is tough: Stand-up and be ready for '...the slings and arrows of outrageuos fortune"! Only then will we reach - and breach the - goal of St Crispins Day.

:peace:

* Special - Blair - dispensations for the Bog-trotter

Smarmeron said:

Might as well throw this open to the field.
When does tax evasion stop being illegal for an individual or company?

When Parliament changes the law

SouthamObserver said:

Alanbrooke said:

SouthamObserver said:

Having discovered that an eye-watering 1,780 people across the United Kingdom are claiming benefits for obesity-related reasons I am more convinced than ever that recently announced Tory plans to crackdown on the feral fat are in no way related to the fact we have a general election approaching and the Tories need to get some votes back from UKIP. This is high-minded stuff and will save the taxpayer literally thousands of pounds a year.

http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2015/02/15/tory-obesity-crackdown-would-hit-just-1-780-people

LOL

you think the rest of them are going to come out with sensible costed policies ?

There is no money.

This election is an austerity auction with parties bidding for votes on "we will hurt you least".

Completely agree. Do you remember we are all in it together?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2945341/The-3m-bash-Dave-doesn-t-want-know-ANDREW-PIERCE-tonight-s-Tory-Black-White-Ball.html

It's a party, get over it.

Hundreds of charities throw parties to raise money every year. This one was just a bit more expensive and thrown by a political party.

Charles said:

another_richard said:

And here's a list of Local Government Ministers during this government:

Grant Shapps 13/05/10 - 04/09/12
Mark Prist 04/09/12 - 07/10/13
Kris Hopkins 07/10/13 -

Did any of this trio take any action against Rotherham council ?

Hasn't Pickles forced the whole council to go up for reelection next time (therefore, by extension, Hopkins). But he had to wait for the official report to be published before he could take action.

It may be slower than you like, but to set aside an elected council like that is rightly difficult and slow

Pickles has now, though it looks like he expected Casey to produce a 'lessons have been learnt and systems strengthened' report thus allowing him to do nothing.

Casey to her credit didn't and Pickles to his credit is finally taking some action - how effective that action will be we don't know yet. Only when we see dozens of plods, social workers, councillors and council officials in jail will we know that proper action has been taken.

Though Pickles taking action exposes May's inaction with the South Yorkshire plods as even more contemptible.

But it has to be remembered that the initial research into Rotherham was conducted by the Times and the response of this government was to do nothing.

If Rotherham council hadn't commissioned the Jay report (and I suspect they were expecting something similar to the usual Ofsted whitewash) then this government would have continued to do nothing.

In short this government has chosen to take no action until forced into a position where it had no choice. Likewise it has been continually reluctant to admit there is a widespread problem with this issue.

Now that might seem right and proper to you but it goes against that famous quote of Edmund Burke which Conservatives are so fond of.

SouthamObserver said:

Alanbrooke said:

SouthamObserver said:

Having discovered that an eye-watering 1,780 people across the United Kingdom are claiming benefits for obesity-related reasons I am more convinced than ever that recently announced Tory plans to crackdown on the feral fat are in no way related to the fact we have a general election approaching and the Tories need to get some votes back from UKIP. This is high-minded stuff and will save the taxpayer literally thousands of pounds a year.

http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2015/02/15/tory-obesity-crackdown-would-hit-just-1-780-people

LOL

you think the rest of them are going to come out with sensible costed policies ?

There is no money.

This election is an austerity auction with parties bidding for votes on "we will hurt you least".

Completely agree. Do you remember we are all in it together?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2945341/The-3m-bash-Dave-doesn-t-want-know-ANDREW-PIERCE-tonight-s-Tory-Black-White-Ball.html

That was a decent platform if Cameron had stuck with it. It would have kept people on board and voting for him. Instead we had

- the 50 p rate fiasco
- greyish tax dealings
- one law for bankers another for everyone else.

Cameron screwed up his "detox" by detoxing on the wrong issues. Social issues were fine for the good times, but in a recession when everyone is hurting he needed to do it on wealth. This is a great government if you are a gay high rate taxpayer working in London financial services. Unfortunately for the Conservatives that's not an election winning recipe, there just aren't enough of them nor are they in the right places.

Camneron can't do numbers.

SouthamObserver said:

Having discovered that an eye-watering 1,780 people across the United Kingdom are claiming benefits for obesity-related reasons I am more convinced than ever that recently announced Tory plans to crackdown on the feral fat are in no way related to the fact we have a general election approaching and the Tories need to get some votes back from UKIP. This is high-minded stuff and will save the taxpayer literally thousands of pounds a year.

http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2015/02/15/tory-obesity-crackdown-would-hit-just-1-780-people

2000 fat people on benefits.. probably the max 26000 a yr that's 52 million smackers, no wonder lefties just don't understand how much it all costs...

SquareRoot said:

SouthamObserver said:

Having discovered that an eye-watering 1,780 people across the United Kingdom are claiming benefits for obesity-related reasons I am more convinced than ever that recently announced Tory plans to crackdown on the feral fat are in no way related to the fact we have a general election approaching and the Tories need to get some votes back from UKIP. This is high-minded stuff and will save the taxpayer literally thousands of pounds a year.

http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2015/02/15/tory-obesity-crackdown-would-hit-just-1-780-people

2000 fat people on benefits.. probably the max 26000 a yr that's 52 million smackers, no wonder lefties just don't understand how much it all costs...

You will not save twenty six thousand pounds each. They will claim something else.

SouthamObserver said:

Having discovered that an eye-watering 1,780 people across the United Kingdom are claiming benefits for obesity-related reasons I am more convinced than ever that recently announced Tory plans to crackdown on the feral fat are in no way related to the fact we have a general election approaching and the Tories need to get some votes back from UKIP. This is high-minded stuff and will save the taxpayer literally thousands of pounds a year.

http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2015/02/15/tory-obesity-crackdown-would-hit-just-1-780-people

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the issue it does give the image of the school bullies picking on the fatboy.

@MarqueeMark
In most cases, it would be the only place you could say it directly.
It is why I asked the original question.

Smarmeron said:

Might as well throw this open to the field.
When does tax evasion stop being illegal for an individual or company?

When they're so rich that the government thinks "if we take action there's a risk that these people will move overseas and we don't want that".

another_richard said:

Smarmeron said:

Might as well throw this open to the field.
When does tax evasion stop being illegal for an individual or company?

When they're so rich that the government thinks "if we take action there's a risk that these people will move overseas and we don't want that".

But does that stack up ?

The super rich as we have seen use advisers. High tax rates hit people on PAYE since they have nowhere else to hide it.

Mr. Richard, disagree. The benefits and health costs of the 'fat boy' are paid for by the taxpayer even though the fatness is almost always self-inflicted. The money's flowing from the taxpayer to the obese. It's better for them, and for the public purse, to cut the fat and get in better shape.

Only the little people pay taxes.

MarkSenior said:

SquareRoot said:

SouthamObserver said:

Having discovered that an eye-watering 1,780 people across the United Kingdom are claiming benefits for obesity-related reasons I am more convinced than ever that recently announced Tory plans to crackdown on the feral fat are in no way related to the fact we have a general election approaching and the Tories need to get some votes back from UKIP. This is high-minded stuff and will save the taxpayer literally thousands of pounds a year.

http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2015/02/15/tory-obesity-crackdown-would-hit-just-1-780-people

2000 fat people on benefits.. probably the max 26000 a yr that's 52 million smackers, no wonder lefties just don't understand how much it all costs...

And how many obese tax avoiders are there ? I expect costing the country rather more than 52 million smackers

Was that crook who gave the LIb Dem's 2.4 million a fattie? Shocking to think the LD's accepted the proceeds of crime as a donation. Wasn't he a fraudster (convicted)

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Richard, disagree. The benefits and health costs of the 'fat boy' are paid for by the taxpayer even though the fatness is almost always self-inflicted. The money's flowing from the taxpayer to the obese. It's better for them, and for the public purse, to cut the fat and get in better shape.

I don't disagree - my point was about the imagery.

SquareRoot said:

SouthamObserver said:

Having discovered that an eye-watering 1,780 people across the United Kingdom are claiming benefits for obesity-related reasons I am more convinced than ever that recently announced Tory plans to crackdown on the feral fat are in no way related to the fact we have a general election approaching and the Tories need to get some votes back from UKIP. This is high-minded stuff and will save the taxpayer literally thousands of pounds a year.

http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2015/02/15/tory-obesity-crackdown-would-hit-just-1-780-people

2000 fat people on benefits.. probably the max 26000 a yr that's 52 million smackers, no wonder lefties just don't understand how much it all costs...

And how many obese tax avoiders are there ? I expect costing the country rather more than 52 million smackers

Do you mean 'tax evaders'? 'Tax avoiders' by definition don't cost the country anything, because they simply pay the minimum tax they are required to by law, which is pretty much all anyone pays.

Otherwise, as somebody who has all his savings in an ISA and is therefore avoiding paying tax on it, I am costing the country money. Which as far as I am concerned, I am not.

There is a different and legitimate point to be made about ensuring that tax is straightforward to understand and therefore easy to pay and hard to avoid. But that has a lot to do with our ridiculous tax code, as much as anything else. If that were drastically rewritten from first principles to get rid of the complexity (mostly left by the last two Labour governments) I'm pretty sure we'd see an end to the schemes of Amazon, Starbucks, Margaret Hodge et al.

@dr_spyn

27 per cent of those polled indicated they would or might change their mind before the big day

@Alanbrooke
I was tax evasion I was talking about.
The 50p tax and it's reduction was a bit of a mistake I think personally.

German carnival called off due to terrorist threat:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-31477237

john_zims said:

@dr_spyn

27 per cent of those polled indicated they would or might change their mind before the big day

Miliband personal ratings are still dragging along the floor.

@Alanbrooke
VAT is avoidable on certain things as long as you are reasonably careful, and not on PAYE.

Is the current Labour campaign on tax and dodgy donors etc. negative campaigning?

I thought Labour was going to have a positive campaign rather than go negative?

Smarmeron said:

@Alanbrooke
VAT is avoidable on certain things as long as you are reasonably careful, and not on PAYE.

Is that avoiding or evading ?

FrankBooth said:

Steve Garner - If anyone was watching This Week they'd have noted the eye-catching remarks from Diane Abbott. She stated that the reason Miliband is doing all the running on tax avoidance and the like is because Balls won't touch it. If the Tories wren't such a bunch of amateurs they'd be trying to put distance between the Eds who plainly don't agree.

I do think Miliband deserves serious praise if he becomes PM. He might be up against the useless Tories and have the voting system on his side but when you take into account the hostility of the press, the disloyalty of his own side from the shadow chancellor downwards, the financial disadvantage compared to the Tories and the less than warm words coming from some of our corporate leaders, it would be a major achievement.

Balls really has no political nous at all. He constantly opposes all the hits that Miliband comes up with (apparently he opposed the energy price freeze too) while trying to steer Labour into unwinnable dutch auctions about whether they'll be as "tough" as the Tories in cutting spending.

@Alanbrooke
It depends on how careful you want to be, but even if it is evasion, the chances of being caught are fairly slim.

Ed Balls not so happy to back Red Ed as the Labour chorus on here.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/11413940/Ed-Balls-refuses-to-back-Ed-Miliband-tax-loophole.html

Danny565 said:

FrankBooth said:

Steve Garner - If anyone was watching This Week they'd have noted the eye-catching remarks from Diane Abbott. She stated that the reason Miliband is doing all the running on tax avoidance and the like is because Balls won't touch it. If the Tories wren't such a bunch of amateurs they'd be trying to put distance between the Eds who plainly don't agree.

I do think Miliband deserves serious praise if he becomes PM. He might be up against the useless Tories and have the voting system on his side but when you take into account the hostility of the press, the disloyalty of his own side from the shadow chancellor downwards, the financial disadvantage compared to the Tories and the less than warm words coming from some of our corporate leaders, it would be a major achievement.

Balls really has no political nous at all. He constantly opposes all the hits that Miliband comes up with (apparently he opposed the energy price freeze too) while trying to steer Labour into unwinnable dutch auctions about whether they'll be as "tough" as the Tories in cutting spending.

Considering the energy price freeze is one reason why prices are proving so slow to come down (costing us all quite a lot of money) even as wholesale gas prices have done a passable impression of a lead balloon, that's not a good example.

another_richard said:

SouthamObserver said:

Having discovered that an eye-watering 1,780 people across the United Kingdom are claiming benefits for obesity-related reasons I am more convinced than ever that recently announced Tory plans to crackdown on the feral fat are in no way related to the fact we have a general election approaching and the Tories need to get some votes back from UKIP. This is high-minded stuff and will save the taxpayer literally thousands of pounds a year.

http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2015/02/15/tory-obesity-crackdown-would-hit-just-1-780-people

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the issue it does give the image of the school bullies picking on the fatboy.

If this was a serious initiative it would have got underway a long time ago. It's an effort to demonise a tiny section of society in order to get a few votes back from UKIP.

The Hong Kong tax book is 276 pages.

Britain's is 17000 pages...

MarqueeMark said:

PClipp said:

nigel4england said:

That will be the same Boy George that has done a superb job of getting the country back into growth without causing mass unemployment?

I thought it was the Lib Dems who did that.

All Osborn was interested in was cutting taxes on the super-rich.

For what you say to be true, that would require the LibDems to be in Coalition Govt. Now that can't be right, or we would have heard them claiming credit for stuff, rather than criticising everything the Govt has done for the past five years.....

Groan.....

The Lib Dems signed up for a Coalition Government, on the basis of a coalition agreement over policy.

The Lib Dems in government have stuck to that agreement - everybody comments on their reliability in government.

In contrast, a lot of Tories seemed to think that the Lib Dems had signed up to Tory policies. And tried to treat the Coalition Goverment as though it was a Tory one. Which is very definitely has not been. A Tory one would have been very different.

Consequently, they got a bit peeved when Lib Dems criticised their Tory colleagues for implementing Tory policies rather than agreed coalition policies. Take the original Lansley proposals for the NHS for example.

It is the disloyal Tory politiciams who should be criticised for unsettling the Coalition. And the Lib Dems who should be given their fair share of credit for the successful outcomes of agreed policy.

Pulpstar said:

The Hong Kong tax book is 276 pages.

Britain's is 17000 pages...

A make-work scheme for tax lawyers and tax accountants.

How rich do you need to be to make it worthwhile to employ a tax lawyer or tax accountant ?

@Danny565
Pienaar interviewed Ed B on radio five this morning. Ed B has to distance himself from the affair because of his brief. but among the usual dramatic fireworks that we expect from an interview these days there was a small sentence that solved one of the puzzles I had about Ed M's tax accusations

Waiting for the latest ELBOW Sunil? Increased Labour lead I'm guessing after the week as Ed has had. Admittedly, the tax issue was an open goal but Ed has slotted it in. Of course the rabid right-wing nutjobs on here will defend those sleazy dodgy individuals to the last but his attacks resonated well within the country....

@murali_s
It hasn't been slotted in yet. The shot is on it's way and the crowd are willing it in, or wanting it to miss or be saved depending on allegiances.
Lot's of noise and confusion, but no decision.

Ed Balls refuses to back Ed Miliband tax loophole
Ed Balls has said that he might close a tax loophole used by Ed Miliband, after insisting he would crack down on "aggressive tax avoidance".

The Shadow Chancellor failed to back the Labour leader’s over his family’s use of a “deed of variation”, which changed his father’s will posthumously to minimise the amount paid in inheritance tax.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/11413940/Ed-Balls-refuses-to-back-Ed-Miliband-tax-loophole.html

@CarlottaVance
It would be hard for Ed Balls to back any "loophole" when the Labour Party are promising a full review?

Given the comments coming from Labour this morning, I see there are 2 types of tax avoidance:-

The "predator" tax avoider (aka Tory donor) and the "producer" tax avoider (aka Labour donor).

Well I'm glad they cleared that up.

@MarkHopkins
No, but hopefully Dave and Ozzie think the same way you do.
It makes Milliband's task a lot easier.
(easier, not easy)

@CarlottaVance
Does being a donor to a political party give you a right to dictate a policy then Carlotta?

Alanbrooke said:

Smarmeron said:

@Alanbrooke
VAT is avoidable on certain things as long as you are reasonably careful, and not on PAYE.

Is that avoiding or evading ?

Don't you know by now?

Labour: 'Legitimate tax planning'
Tory: 'Avoiding/evading, they're Tories so its much the same thing really'

Smarmeron said:

@CarlottaVance
Does being a donor to a political party give you a right to dictate a policy then Carlotta?

Len McCluskey seems to think so.

This tax stuff has been going on for too long.

Tax evasion is illegal
Tax avoidance is legal
Tax abuse is tax avoidance practiced by the other party.

Hypocrisy is what all politicians indulge in.

Clear?

The SNP have been quick off the mark:

Jim Murphy has been challenged to say he will not accept money from Sir David Garrard after revelations in the Sunday Times on his use of offshore trusts.

The Sunday Times reports that Labour donor Sir David Garrard had placed shares in offshore trusts, a mechanism that can be used to avoid tax. Earlier this week Ed Miliband pledged an inquiry into tax avoidance, making the suggestion that Labour donors could have been involved in the practice extremely damaging.

On Thursday the Times quoted Sir David Garrard saying “we’re talking tens of thousands” when asked how much he planned to donate to Jim Murphy. The Labour Donor had previously donated £1,570 to Jim Murphy’s leadership campaign.

http://www.snp.org/media-centre/news/2015/feb/murphy-challenged-over-donations

CD13
Tax evasion is illegal until you get caught, then in the vast majority of cases it stops being illegal. (except in one in seven thousand cases apparently)

As predicted, the BBC about as interested in Labour's donors as they are in Mirror's phone hacking activities.