politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » LAB’s just reignited pensions as a battleground
Comments
-
@ Malcolmg
What are the Scottish implications of this?
Scots (and Welsh, NI) would get the same pensions raid, but without the dubious benefit for students. Am I correct?0 -
Roger employs people to reduce his tax bill. He is a perfect example of the do as I say, not as I do hypocrite.SquareRoot said:
Futile gestures are fine roger so long as its not you eh.... that's why lefties are so hypocriticalRoger said:Alanbrooke
"Roger, nobody makes you take these obscene amounts of cash.
Just do it for the minimum wage and enjoy a clear consience."
I was just testing whether Doddy's distaste for overpaid directors of TV commercials was greater than his distaste for paying tax. But to answer your question society's ills are not solved by futile gestures.0 -
Morning all and the usual excellent thread by Herders.
Is Coolagorna a spoof profile? Even Ed Bland is not daft enough to believe the guff he writes on here.
Gordon Brown and Ed Balls robbed many of us of the sort of safe retirement we had scrimped and saved for with their £125 billion plunder of private sector pensions. I had a Twitter argument with Chris Bryant last year about the effect. He was whinging on about street sweepers being expected to retire on £10k per year. I pointed out thanks to his government I can look forward to retiring on a private pension of £3k per year. He shut up at that point.
Labour really hates business. Labour doesn't understand business. The millions of us who slog week in and week out to run our businesses are doing so because we cant get a proper job in the public sector.
When will Labour realise they created a monster in the current University sector. Hundreds of thousands of semi-illiterate young people who are simply not university material being hoodwinked they can earn degrees with the multiple choice/fill in the boxes culture which is today's typical undergraduate course. Then sadly they go out into the real world and cant understand why private sector employers bin their CVs and applications. Of the 1500-2000 CVs I read each year, I reckon fewer than 10% know how to write a covering letter.
Time to slash the University population back to around 200-250,000 and invest money in further education colleges providing free courses.0 -
From what I saw yesterday it is seen as taxing Scotland to fund English students. labour seem good at it , Murphy wants English taxed to pay for Scottish nurses and Ed wants Scottish taxed to pay for English students. Do these clowns ever talk to each other or even stop to think before they come up with these pathetic dog whistle bribes.foxinsoxuk said:@ Malcolmg
What are the Scottish implications of this?
Scots (and Welsh, NI) would get the same pensions raid, but without the dubious benefit for students. Am I correct?0 -
Tuition fees are a natural result of the massive increase in student numbers that the previous Conservative government created.0
-
Well the SNP have Labour's fox well and truly shot on this. Hopefully it'll go down like cold sick in Scotland and OK in England.foxinsoxuk said:@ Malcolmg
What are the Scottish implications of this?
Scots (and Welsh, NI) would get the same pensions raid, but without the dubious benefit for students. Am I correct?0 -
I've had the same broom for 20 years............Alanbrooke said:
I can recommend street cleaning, you get a great sense of personal satisfaction when you see a nice clean road.richardDodd said:Roger If you don't like what you do for a living then pack it in or change it..I believe there are still some vacancies for street cleaners in Cuba.
0 -
Indeed. Labour want to tax English homes for Scottish nurses, and Scottish pensioners for English students.
Of course, if we had an English Parliament with equal power to Holyrood then this sort of nonsense wouldn't arise.0 -
Ben, I find this extremely sad. The implication of your post is that you agree it's pants but that, hey, this is politics and it's OK to do this pants stuff if it gets you elected.BenM said:If PBTories really think voters are going to study the detail of the long term impact of this proposal their political antennae are more skewed than I thought.
Young people will see REDUCTION IN TUITION FEES and that's about it. Nothing Martin Lewis says (and He's technically right though wrong on overarching mess the system is in) is going to change that.
Rich people whining about the tightening of the lifetime restriction on pension earnings will be laughed at. And rightly so.
Yes its electioneering, this is an election campaign we're in after all. And the proposals are no less realistic than Osborne's 'running a surplus' fantasy. In fact Eds proposal is far more feasible.
Trouble is, EdM used the "no ifs, no buts" line yesterday so that he is now as committed to implementation as he can be, if he is elected.
And yet it's pants.
God help us all
0 -
Well said Mr Herdson.... it's certainly refreshed a lot of people's memory of Gordon and pension raids.... wise move that.
Foxes - you are right - and its a familiar situation.
I assume the 23x value for the LTA is the normal 20x of income and that you also get 3x the income as a tax free cash sum?
One option if you don't want to retire that much earlier perhaps is commuting some of the income for a larger tax free cash sum - the commutation factor is usually well below 20x LTA value so yes you give up the 'excess' income but you get a bigger lump sum? Most clients just retire early or more accurately take retirement benefits early however as there's a reduction in income for doing so and this can get them below the LTA.
A stupid thing with the LTA is it is the same limit whether you are 55 or 75.
Like CGT time-value of money seems irrelevant to Govts.
Talking of age, what about people getting their pension statements each year showing the pension pot projections in perhaps 40 years time which show an illustrative value over £1m way in to the future. The LTA is a nominal flat limit whether today or in 40 years time.0 -
What are you on about you tight-fisted groat grasper ?malcolmg said:
From what I saw yesterday it is seen as taxing Scotland to fund English students. labour seem good at it , Murphy wants English taxed to pay for Scottish nurses and Ed wants Scottish taxed to pay for English students. Do these clowns ever talk to each other or even stop to think before they come up with these pathetic dog whistle bribes.foxinsoxuk said:@ Malcolmg
What are the Scottish implications of this?
Scots (and Welsh, NI) would get the same pensions raid, but without the dubious benefit for students. Am I correct?
For the last 5 years you've been telling me Scotland pays for the entire UK, now when we need a few wee bawbees for the bairns you're running about like a London banker with a tax demand.
Pay up and send me a case of Laphroaig to make up for the insult.0 -
If Ed loses then the only Labour leader to win an election since 1974 will be one T Blair. The Labour party could well be in for an enormous internal fight over its future.saddened said:
I'm not sure it is. There's a world of difference between the concept of Ed, PM, and the cold blooded act of trudging down to the polling place and in the privacy of the booth actually making a conscious decision to mark your cross and make it happen.Peter_the_Punter said:
Isn't that already factored into Voting Intentions though, Sad?saddened said:
68 days of Ed, being this ineffective may well be enough to sink him. When even the people who should be his biggest cheerleaders, such as Labour uncut, are dismissive of him, he's got real problems.coolagorna said:
68 days left of it and countingfoxinsoxuk said:
As I recall, JackW is (like me) a supporter of the coalition and prefers it to either party in sole government.coolagorna said:
And that "old chap" explains why you havent won a GE majority sinceJackW said:May I just commend @coolagorna on his recent but now regular comedy turns on PB.
It's becoming something of a guilty but essential pleasure most days and has the residual benefit of ensuring the chuckle muscles of most PBers remain in full working order.
Well done old chap.
1992
You dont even recognise the North, Scotland, Wales and London
let alone want to take any steps to win votes there by accepting
that not everyone thinks neo liberalism has been an unqualified
success and that "Britain is booming" and try to engage with them
Now run along and check your shares.
As such we do have a majority government.
I'm very biased against him, but even I am surprised at the level of contempt shown by people when he is spoken about. He suffers from the same issue as Kinnock did, he's just not seen as prime minister material.
0 -
This government has done things Thatcher could only have dreamtMarqueeMark said:
Cameron? Clegg? The Coalition? Extreme right wing? Hmmm.coolagorna said:
There will definitely be Crossover dont worry PB boys and girlsPeter_the_Punter said:
Crossover is also a bit of a running joke around here, Ish!Ishmael_X said:
Lack of crossover is purely a statistical artefact.Peter_the_Punter said:
Which all makes it rather puzzling as to why Labour maintain a small but persistent poll lead.logical_song said:So over the last 4 months:
Tories stronger and more competent,
Labour more divided,
Lib Dems less divided,
UKIP weaker, nastier (in fact nastiest by a full 10%), more divided and less professional.MikeSmithson said:
I had a quick reckon up of poll leads in the first two months of the year and I make it:
January - Blue 7: Ties 10: Red 26
February - Blue 7: Ties 6 : Red 28
As Nick P so regularly comments, nothing is changing. There's no trend and precious little movement. Crossover remains as elusive as ever and 'the month of pulling away' appears to have been postponed.
Personally I blame Sunil.
VERY puzzling poll, I cannot get my head round Divided - Con 30% (-15). A move of that magnitude on any polling question at all is extraordinary, and what has happened to justify it? A slightly quiet period for euro-silliness I suppose, but 15 points?
Be kind of sad when it happens and we have to stop teasing Sunil.
"embarking on the most extreme right wing five year term for many a year"
* guffaw *
of doing including people like Cable flogging off the Royal Mail
which even John Majors Bow Group described as a disaster
and a complete rip off of the taxpayer (though he in turn sold off
our railways in similar disastrous fashion)
Sending vans round London telling people to "go home" would have
been Nick Griffins wet dream too so yep..extreme right wing
is a bit over the top but has some basis in fact
0 -
You are Eric Morecambe and I claim my £5.Alistair said:Tuition fees are a natural result of the massive increase in student numbers that the previous Conservative government created.
0 -
Labour is counting on the voters (students, pension contributors and devolved nations) being stupid.Blofelds_Cat said:
Ben, I find this extremely sad. The implication of your post is that you agree it's pants but that, hey, this is politics and it's OK to do this pants stuff if it gets you elected.BenM said:If PBTories really think voters are going to study the detail of the long term impact of this proposal their political antennae are more skewed than I thought.
Young people will see REDUCTION IN TUITION FEES and that's about it. Nothing Martin Lewis says (and He's technically right though wrong on overarching mess the system is in) is going to change that.
Rich people whining about the tightening of the lifetime restriction on pension earnings will be laughed at. And rightly so.
Yes its electioneering, this is an election campaign we're in after all. And the proposals are no less realistic than Osborne's 'running a surplus' fantasy. In fact Eds proposal is far more feasible.
Trouble is, EdM used the "no ifs, no buts" line yesterday so that he is now as committed to implementation as he can be, if he is elected.
And yet it's pants.
God help us all
No one is defending these changes in other ways.
0 -
I think Vince Cable said yesterday that opposition plans for HE funding are always doomed once the reality of governing starts. Of course, he's an expert on that front.Philip_Thompson said:Is it just me who as a student under the last Labour government is fed up of hearing pure poppycock from Labour and their supporters over the Lib Dems? Lets not forget who introduced tuition fees, nor their background.
It was Labour in 1997 who were elected with a promise not to introduce tuition fees who then immediately introduced tuition fees and started this off.
Then it became what was then called "top-up fees" and it was Labour who in 2001 said in their manifesto that they were "against top-up fees and have legislated against them" - only to almost immediately after being re-elected implement them creating the £3000 fees. Oh and of course that vote was lost on English-only MPs. It was Scottish Labour MPs who created the majority.
Finally then it was Peter Mandelson and Labour who commissioned the report that recommended £9,000 fees. It is fairly obvious from history what would have happened had Labour been re-elected.
Yes the Lib-Dem minority went back on their pledges. No more than the Labour majorities have time and again. The notion that Labour is a friend of the student is absurd.
0 -
So let me get this right, Saddo.saddened said:
I'm not sure it is. There's a world of difference between the concept of Ed, PM, and the cold blooded act of trudging down to the polling place and in the privacy of the booth actually making a conscious decision to mark your cross and make it happen.Peter_the_Punter said:
Isn't that already factored into Voting Intentions though, Sad?saddened said:
6got real problems.coolagorna said:
68 days left of it and countingfoxinsoxuk said:
As I recall, JackW is (like me) a supporter of the coalition and prefers it to either party in sole government.coolagorna said:JackW said:May I just commend @coolagorna on his recent but now regular comedy turns on PB.
It's becoming something of a guilty but essential pleasure most days and has the residual benefit of ensuring the chuckle muscles of most PBers remain in full working order.
Well done old chap.
Now run along and check your shares.
As such we do have a majority government.
I'm very biased against him, but even I am surprised at the level of contempt shown by people when he is spoken about. He suffers from the same issue as Kinnock did, he's just not seen as prime minister material.
When it comes to May 7th, some voters who have previously been minded to vote Labour will suddenly think to themselves 'Ed is crap', or words to that effect. It won't have occurred to them before, but now faced with the momentous decision in the polling booth they become aware of the awesomeness of the error they might have made had they not realised their mistake in time. They then vote for somebody who is presumably less crap. And this happens in enough instances in enough polling booths to save the Nation from the terrible fate of a Labour Government, or No Overall Majority, or whatever.
This is how it works?
Now this is indeed possible, but please bear in mind that I am a (semi) professional punter and my livelihood (partially) depends on getting these things right. As it stands, my suspicion is that what you are expecting is more in the nature of a Hope, or an Article Of Faith even. I'm not altogether sure I want to invest much of my betting bank on a Hope, or an AOF. If it's all the same to you, I'd sooner stick to form, and as usual in these matters the best form guide is the polls.
The polls are easy to read at the moment. They're pretty static, and they are pretty consistent within the usual margins of error and subject to the occasional but perfectly normal outlier.
In fact I've a funny feeling they may even be right.
0 -
On topic, like the mansion tax I doubt the pensions thing is going to work out the way the Tories hope. This is a populist policy designed for elections, and they'll have focus-grouped it properly. That said, I do wonder whether it was smart to promise to spend the money on tuition fees. Even if students manage to jump through the new registration hoops then actually vote, are they going to believe Labour would keep their promise? Maybe the point of this is just to get tuition fees back in the news so that Labour can remind everyone why they don't trust the LibDems.0
-
pretty safe bet though.foxinsoxuk said:
Labour is counting on the voters (students, pension contributors and devolved nations) being stupid.Blofelds_Cat said:
Ben, I find this extremely sad. The implication of your post is that you agree it's pants but that, hey, this is politics and it's OK to do this pants stuff if it gets you elected.BenM said:If PBTories really think voters are going to study the detail of the long term impact of this proposal their political antennae are more skewed than I thought.
Young people will see REDUCTION IN TUITION FEES and that's about it. Nothing Martin Lewis says (and He's technically right though wrong on overarching mess the system is in) is going to change that.
Rich people whining about the tightening of the lifetime restriction on pension earnings will be laughed at. And rightly so.
Yes its electioneering, this is an election campaign we're in after all. And the proposals are no less realistic than Osborne's 'running a surplus' fantasy. In fact Eds proposal is far more feasible.
Trouble is, EdM used the "no ifs, no buts" line yesterday so that he is now as committed to implementation as he can be, if he is elected.
And yet it's pants.
God help us all
No one is defending these changes in other ways.0 -
Top rate tax payers get more pension perks than regular taxpayers at the moment. Can anyone explain why that is fair?
Clearly, students who end up in high paying jobs will be affected by the changes more than those who do not end up in such jobs as the new pension provisions will not apply to them.
Finally, the idea that even a significant minority will be affected by this is ridiculous.
Ed is certainly crap. But I just cannot see this being a big issue.0 -
Yep - a safe bet with my kid's future.Alanbrooke said:
pretty safe bet though.foxinsoxuk said:
Labour is counting on the voters (students, pension contributors and devolved nations) being stupid.Blofelds_Cat said:
Ben, I find this extremely sad. The implication of your post is that you agree it's pants but that, hey, this is politics and it's OK to do this pants stuff if it gets you elected.BenM said:If PBTories really think voters are going to study the detail of the long term impact of this proposal their political antennae are more skewed than I thought.
Young people will see REDUCTION IN TUITION FEES and that's about it. Nothing Martin Lewis says (and He's technically right though wrong on overarching mess the system is in) is going to change that.
Rich people whining about the tightening of the lifetime restriction on pension earnings will be laughed at. And rightly so.
Yes its electioneering, this is an election campaign we're in after all. And the proposals are no less realistic than Osborne's 'running a surplus' fantasy. In fact Eds proposal is far more feasible.
Trouble is, EdM used the "no ifs, no buts" line yesterday so that he is now as committed to implementation as he can be, if he is elected.
And yet it's pants.
God help us all
No one is defending these changes in other ways.0 -
We'll see on the 8 of May. I don't think it's as cut and dried as some people think. Good luck with your betting position, you've a lot more courage on predicting the final outcome than me.Peter_the_Punter said:
So let me get this right, Saddo.saddened said:
l.Peter_the_Punter said:
Isn't that already factored into Voting Intentions though, Sad?saddened said:
6got real problems.coolagorna said:
68 days left of it and countingfoxinsoxuk said:
As I recall, JackW is (like me) a supporter of the coalition and prefers it to either party in sole government.coolagorna said:JackW said:May I just commend @coolagorna on his recent but now regular comedy turns on PB.
It's becoming something of a guilty but essential pleasure most days and has the residual benefit of ensuring the chuckle muscles of most PBers remain in full working order.
Well done old chap.
Now run along and check your shares.
As such we do have a majority government.
When it comes to May 7th, some voters who have previously been minded to vote Labour will suddenly think to themselves 'Ed is crap', or words to that effect. It won't have occurred to them before, but now faced with the momentous decision in the polling booth they become aware of the awesomeness of the error they might have made had they not realised their mistake in time. They then vote for somebody who is presumably less crap. And this happens in enough instances in enough polling booths to save the Nation from the terrible fate of a Labour Government, or No Overall Majority, or whatever.
This is how it works?
Now this is indeed possible, but please bear in mind that I am a (semi) professional punter and my livelihood (partially) depends on getting these things right. As it stands, my suspicion is that what you are expecting is more in the nature of a Hope, or an Article Of Faith even. I'm not altogether sure I want to invest much of my betting bank on a Hope, or an AOF. If it's all the same to you, I'd sooner stick to form, and as usual in these matters the best form guide is the polls.
The polls are easy to read at the moment. They're pretty static, and they are pretty consistent within the usual margins of error and subject to the occasional but perfectly normal outlier.
In fact I've a funny feeling they may even be right.0 -
<
So let me get this right, Saddo.
When it comes to May 7th, some voters who have previously been minded to vote Labour will suddenly think to themselves 'Ed is crap', or words to that effect. It won't have occurred to them before, but now faced with the momentous decision in the polling booth they become aware of the awesomeness of the error they might have made had they not realised their mistake in time. They then vote for somebody who is presumably less crap. And this happens in enough instances in enough polling booths to save the Nation from the terrible fate of a Labour Government, or No Overall Majority, or whatever.
This is how it works?
Now this is indeed possible, but please bear in mind that I am a (semi) professional punter and my livelihood (partially) depends on getting these things right. As it stands, my suspicion is that what you are expecting is more in the nature of a Hope, or an Article Of Faith even. I'm not altogether sure I want to invest much of my betting bank on a Hope, or an AOF. If it's all the same to you, I'd sooner stick to form, and as usual in these matters the best form guide is the polls.
The polls are easy to read at the moment. They're pretty static, and they are pretty consistent within the usual margins of error and subject to the occasional but perfectly normal outlier.
In fact I've a funny feeling they may even be right.
I'm also a semi pro punter, mostly on horses with a bit of football and cricket thrown in, and I would no sooner trust the polls to shape my bets than a Barney Curley runner with ten duck eggs.0 -
Regarding the last thread and the implication that Farages vote in thanet may be flaky due to large numbers of DNV support, I am sure we all remember that this was the line trotted out to justify opposing Reckless in Rochester.
Obviously it was proven wrong, but is there any reason why it would be more likely to be a successful betting strategy in thanet? Surely people who are not inclined to vote generally are less likely to vote in a by election than a GE?0 -
Yep agree - the pensions thing isn't going to hit any Labour voters - but spending the money on high earning students and pissing off the Universities is the mistake. Why not spend the 2Bn on raising the benefits cap to 30k or giving council tenants 2 spare room subsidies - would bribe an even bigger section of their client state.edmundintokyo said:On topic, like the mansion tax I doubt the pensions thing is going to work out the way the Tories hope. This is a populist policy designed for elections, and they'll have focus-grouped it properly. That said, I do wonder whether it was smart to promise to spend the money on tuition fees. Even if students manage to jump through the new registration hoops then actually vote, are they going to believe Labour would keep their promise? Maybe the point of this is just to get tuition fees back in the news so that Labour can remind everyone why they don't trust the LibDems.
0 -
Morris, one of these days you will listen. Holyrood has no power other than to spend the pocket money allocated by Westminster. It is merely crumbs thrown to keep the natives from revolting. Very surprised that an intelligent person like yourself does not bother to understand reality and just relies on daily mail type propaganda.Morris_Dancer said:Indeed. Labour want to tax English homes for Scottish nurses, and Scottish pensioners for English students.
Of course, if we had an English Parliament with equal power to Holyrood then this sort of nonsense wouldn't arise.0 -
TGOHF said:
Fatcha ! You could set your watch by the Nats...Alistair said:Tuition fees are a natural result of the massive increase in student numbers that the previous Conservative government created.
Poster doesn't mention Thatcher, 5 minutes later PB Loyalist crowbars in 'Fatcha'.
You could boil your eggs to the PB Loyalists.
0 -
If I understand the Labour cheerleaders here correctly
- the people whose pensions will be affected by this (and who vote) won't know or care
- Students (who don't vote) will read only the positive headlines and rush out to put their cross next to Ed
right...0 -
Turnout.isam said:Regarding the last thread and the implication that Farages vote in thanet may be flaky due to large numbers of DNV support, I am sure we all remember that this was the line trotted out to justify opposing Reckless in Rochester.
Obviously it was proven wrong, but is there any reason why it would be more likely to be a successful betting strategy in thanet? Surely people who are not inclined to vote generally are less likely to vote in a by election than a GE?0 -
Harriet Harman's women-only Barbie battle bus has already been derided as 'sexist', a 'gimmick' and 'patronising' to female voters.
But now the hapless van is the source of fresh controversy as it emerges that it is in breach of vehicle licensing regulations.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2972962/SEBASTIAN-SHAKESPEARE-Red-faces-Harriet-s-pink-Barbie-Bus-breaks-law.html
You can't help but laugh really.0 -
Even the BBC recognises that this futile gesture is only going to help wealthy students and will not help a single student in Scotland. And when the BBC put this to Miliband he ignored the question - if indeed he understood it. He just wittered on about how tragic the life of young people, especially the life of young people getting an education(!), was.BenM said:If PBTories really think voters are going to study the detail of the long term impact of this proposal their political antennae are more skewed than I thought.
Young people will see REDUCTION IN TUITION FEES and that's about it. Nothing Martin Lewis says (and He's technically right though wrong on overarching mess the system is in) is going to change that.
Rich people whining about the tightening of the lifetime restriction on pension earnings will be laughed at. And rightly so.
Yes its electioneering, this is an election campaign we're in after all. And the proposals are no less realistic than Osborne's 'running a surplus' fantasy. In fact Eds proposal is far more feasible.
If the Universities really think that the money they will get to replace these fees will ever materialise, or if it does that it will not come with socialist strings, then they are politically illiterate.
Whatever education you have had has also clearly left you economically illiterate as well.
0 -
Imagine for a second that tuition fees are the biggest thing in our lives and a determining factor in how we vote.
The competing offers:
Tory/Lib Dem: £9,000 a year
Labour: £6,000 a year
Green/SNP* : £0 a year.
Who are you going to vote for?
Miliband is in the same kind of no-man's land that Cameron is on immigration and the EU.
He can out-bid his major 2010 rival, but he's constantly being blind-sided by the 2015 newcomers.
* the devolved responsibility is acknowledged, but the general Labour signal is the same.0 -
LOL, you can have Murphy if you want Alan. If I was in England I would hold my nose and vote Tory.Alanbrooke said:
What are you on about you tight-fisted groat grasper ?malcolmg said:
From what I saw yesterday it is seen as taxing Scotland to fund English students. labour seem good at it , Murphy wants English taxed to pay for Scottish nurses and Ed wants Scottish taxed to pay for English students. Do these clowns ever talk to each other or even stop to think before they come up with these pathetic dog whistle bribes.foxinsoxuk said:@ Malcolmg
What are the Scottish implications of this?
Scots (and Welsh, NI) would get the same pensions raid, but without the dubious benefit for students. Am I correct?
For the last 5 years you've been telling me Scotland pays for the entire UK, now when we need a few wee bawbees for the bairns you're running about like a London banker with a tax demand.
Pay up and send me a case of Laphroaig to make up for the insult.0 -
That explains Labour in '97 and Lib Dems in '10. Not Labour repeating themselves when they were re-elected with their Top-Up Fees fiasco.rottenborough said:
I think Vince Cable said yesterday that opposition plans for HE funding are always doomed once the reality of governing starts. Of course, he's an expert on that front.Philip_Thompson said:Is it just me who as a student under the last Labour government is fed up of hearing pure poppycock from Labour and their supporters over the Lib Dems? Lets not forget who introduced tuition fees, nor their background.
It was Labour in 1997 who were elected with a promise not to introduce tuition fees who then immediately introduced tuition fees and started this off.
Then it became what was then called "top-up fees" and it was Labour who in 2001 said in their manifesto that they were "against top-up fees and have legislated against them" - only to almost immediately after being re-elected implement them creating the £3000 fees. Oh and of course that vote was lost on English-only MPs. It was Scottish Labour MPs who created the majority.
Finally then it was Peter Mandelson and Labour who commissioned the report that recommended £9,000 fees. It is fairly obvious from history what would have happened had Labour been re-elected.
Yes the Lib-Dem minority went back on their pledges. No more than the Labour majorities have time and again. The notion that Labour is a friend of the student is absurd.0 -
That's exactly it. The policy gives Labour politicians a superficially coherent answer to the question "what would you do?" for every time they bring up the Lib Dem pledge on the campaign trail. Complete cynical bollocks of a policy, but I suppose that demonstrates a certain level of political competence.edmundintokyo said:On topic, like the mansion tax I doubt the pensions thing is going to work out the way the Tories hope. This is a populist policy designed for elections, and they'll have focus-grouped it properly. That said, I do wonder whether it was smart to promise to spend the money on tuition fees. Even if students manage to jump through the new registration hoops then actually vote, are they going to believe Labour would keep their promise? Maybe the point of this is just to get tuition fees back in the news so that Labour can remind everyone why they don't trust the LibDems.
0 -
I'm also a semi pro punter, mostly on horses with a bit of football and cricket thrown in, and I would no sooner trust the polls to shape my bets than a Barney Curley runner with ten duck eggs.nigel4england said:<
So let me get this right, Saddo.
When it comes to May 7th, some voters who have previously been minded to vote Labour will suddenly think to themselves 'Ed is crap', or words to that effect. It won't have occurred to them before, but now faced with the momentous decision in the polling booth they become aware of the awesomeness of the error they might have made had they not realised their mistake in time. They then vote for somebody who is presumably less crap. And this happens in enough instances in enough polling booths to save the Nation from the terrible fate of a Labour Government, or No Overall Majority, or whatever.
This is how it works?
Now this is indeed possible, but please bear in mind that I am a (semi) professional punter and my livelihood (partially) depends on getting these things right. As it stands, my suspicion is that what you are expecting is more in the nature of a Hope, or an Article Of Faith even. I'm not altogether sure I want to invest much of my betting bank on a Hope, or an AOF. If it's all the same to you, I'd sooner stick to form, and as usual in these matters the best form guide is the polls.
The polls are easy to read at the moment. They're pretty static, and they are pretty consistent within the usual margins of error and subject to the occasional but perfectly normal outlier.
In fact I've a funny feeling they may even be right.
A strange comparison...Polls like the form.book are a reasonable guide
to future events and if you are expecting The Tories and Lib Dems
after three years of to, pu, nvr nrr and out the back throughout to suddenly
like a Curley gamble sprint clear and romp home you may be in for
a disappointment
Incidentally I paid all the tax required of me last year....as Mili junior would
say in answer to your Q
0 -
There are two arguments in favour of higher rate tax relief on pensions contributions. The first is a general one that governments have subscribed to for decades: anything that encourages people to make their own pension provision is good. Secondly, the tax relief can actually be sort of seen to be a delayed tax - since in general pensioners pay tax on their pensions when they claim them.SouthamObserver said:Top rate tax payers get more pension perks than regular taxpayers at the moment. Can anyone explain why that is fair?
Clearly, students who end up in high paying jobs will be affected by the changes more than those who do not end up in such jobs as the new pension provisions will not apply to them.
Finally, the idea that even a significant minority will be affected by this is ridiculous.
Ed is certainly crap. But I just cannot see this being a big issue.
Personally, I don't think these arguments are strong enough to continue the system. However, I'm not persuaded that the alleged £2billion raised is best spent on the student fees system. As someone point out in NS yesterday, that's one hell of a lot of apprenticeships or technical vocational, FE places.0 -
Yesterday the Fatcha- Major govt was to blame for not closing down sectairian schools in Scotland over the last 17 years - now they are to blame for more students going to Uni - like that is a bad thing. Was it Major- Maggies fault that we invaded Iraq ?Theuniondivvie said:TGOHF said:
Fatcha ! You could set your watch by the Nats...Alistair said:Tuition fees are a natural result of the massive increase in student numbers that the previous Conservative government created.
Poster doesn't mention Thatcher, 5 minutes later PB Loyalist crowbars in 'Fatcha'.
You could boil your eggs to the PB Loyalists.0 -
The more high earning former students there are, the more this scheme will raise.TGOHF said:
Yep agree - the pensions thing isn't going to hit any Labour voters - but spending the money on high earning students and pissing off the Universities is the mistake. Why not spend the 2Bn on raising the benefits cap to 30k or giving council tenants 2 spare room subsidies - would bribe an even bigger section of their client state.edmundintokyo said:On topic, like the mansion tax I doubt the pensions thing is going to work out the way the Tories hope. This is a populist policy designed for elections, and they'll have focus-grouped it properly. That said, I do wonder whether it was smart to promise to spend the money on tuition fees. Even if students manage to jump through the new registration hoops then actually vote, are they going to believe Labour would keep their promise? Maybe the point of this is just to get tuition fees back in the news so that Labour can remind everyone why they don't trust the LibDems.
Presumably you have no problem with the current government subsidising council tenants with two, three or even four spare rooms to buy their homes so that they can then sell them for a big profit.
0 -
I'm surprised that so many are approaching this on the rather parochial level of how much it'll cost them in lost pensions and missing the emblematic significance of student fees.
This is the poll tax re-run. In the remote possibility of the Lib Dems doing a Lazarus this uppercut to the solar plexus reminds those who have forgotten why no one should even entertain them and the new and only standard bearer for the left are Labour.
0 -
Because Labour have such a good track record on student fees?Roger said:I'm surprised that so many are approaching this on the rather parochial level of how much it'll cost them in lost pensions and missing the emblematic significance of student fees.
This is the poll tax re-run. In the remote possibility of the Lib Dems doing a Lazarus this uppercut to the solar plexus reminds those who have forgotten why no one should even entertain them and the new and only standard bearer for the left are Labour.
0 -
Nice to know Ed is looking out for PB bettor's booksFlightpath said:
Even the BBC recognises that this futile gesture is only going to help wealthy students and will not help a single student in Scotland
0 -
A very fair argument. The bottom line is that on balance it is not unfair to end the additional benefits top rate taxpayers (such as myself) enjoy over and above those enjoyed by the majority of taxpayers. The issue is whether the money raised could be better applied. I tend to agree with you that it could. My sense is that most students - I have one son who has just left university and one who is still there - regard tuition fees as part and parcel of life and do not harbour any huge grudge about paying them. I actually think the present scheme is pretty good.rottenborough said:
There are two arguments in favour of higher rate tax relief on pensions contributions. The first is a general one that governments have subscribed to for decades: anything that encourages people to make their own pension provision is good. Secondly, the tax relief can actually be sort of seen to be a delayed tax - since in general pensioners pay tax on their pensions when they claim them.SouthamObserver said:Top rate tax payers get more pension perks than regular taxpayers at the moment. Can anyone explain why that is fair?
Clearly, students who end up in high paying jobs will be affected by the changes more than those who do not end up in such jobs as the new pension provisions will not apply to them.
Finally, the idea that even a significant minority will be affected by this is ridiculous.
Ed is certainly crap. But I just cannot see this being a big issue.
Personally, I don't think these arguments are strong enough to continue the system. However, I'm not persuaded that the alleged £2billion raised is best spent on the student fees system. As someone point out in NS yesterday, that's one hell of a lot of apprenticeships or technical vocational, FE places.
0 -
No, it was Blair plus a large proportion of the parliamentary Labour party, + IDS & and an even larger proportion of the parliamentary Conservative party.TGOHF said:
Was it Major- Maggies fault that we invaded Iraq ?Theuniondivvie said:TGOHF said:
Fatcha ! You could set your watch by the Nats...Alistair said:Tuition fees are a natural result of the massive increase in student numbers that the previous Conservative government created.
Poster doesn't mention Thatcher, 5 minutes later PB Loyalist crowbars in 'Fatcha'.
You could boil your eggs to the PB Loyalists.
0 -
"£1m sounds like a lot to ordinary people and the technicalities of having to explain why it’s not will turn most voters off."
It sounds like a lot because it is a lot.
That you don't think so suggests you're a little out of touch with what the average pension pot is.
Meanwhile while we're bewailing the misfortune of those with million quid pension pots the number of 25-34 year olds who own their own home has fallen from 59% to 36% during the last decade:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-31656618
With the government determined not to let house prices fall, tuition fees, open door immigration and the over 65s allowed to remain in employment as long as they want the proportion of young people able to buy a house will continue to fall.
This is not good either for the economy or for society generally.
0 -
Mr Thompson (9.09)
The LDs could have abstained. Given their pledge and the outcome of the election leading to coalition that would have been seen as a not unreasonable stance. Indeed on LD insistence the findings of the report were amended to make the situation easier for poorer students. The coalition agreement allowed the LDs to abstain. The tories were very generous on this. What we had was plain bad politics from the LDs, maybe they thought they could use the amendments to show they were useful, but they had no need to vote and they made a hash of explaining thier position.
We have had nothing but bad politics from the LDs since.
On a similar point I think the Labour Party made a hash of its post indyref position. It remains to be seen if the Tories can make anything out of the clear leftward shift in the SNP now that it wants to play Westminster politics.0 -
Harry , you need to get over your hatred of Catholics, it cannot be good for you. Also more unsuitable students wasting taxpayers money going to Uni is a bad thing. Money could be better spent on teaching them some decent skills.TGOHF said:
Yesterday the Fatcha- Major govt was to blame for not closing down sectairian schools in Scotland over the last 17 years - now they are to blame for more students going to Uni - like that is a bad thing. Was it Major- Maggies fault that we invaded Iraq ?Theuniondivvie said:TGOHF said:
Fatcha ! You could set your watch by the Nats...Alistair said:Tuition fees are a natural result of the massive increase in student numbers that the previous Conservative government created.
Poster doesn't mention Thatcher, 5 minutes later PB Loyalist crowbars in 'Fatcha'.
You could boil your eggs to the PB Loyalists.0 -
Don't you think there's a much higher risk, BenM, that older people will see 'reductions in our pensions' and that's about it? That certainly seems to be the reaction of several on here.BenM said:
Young people will see REDUCTION IN TUITION FEES and that's about it.
And - newsflash - students don't, as a rule, bother to vote as they consider politicians all to be a bunch of hapless mother[obscene word redacted]. Meanwhile, older people do. Therefore, buying the support of younger people who do not vote at the expense of alienating older people who do is the political equivalent of a death wish.
As I have just come back from reading heavy criticism of Miliband's policy by his own shadow cabinet this is clearly a thought that has occurred to them as well.0 -
But in Lab/Con and Lib/Lab marginals in England withchestnut said:Imagine for a second that tuition fees are the biggest thing in our lives and a determining factor in how we vote.
The competing offers:
Tory/Lib Dem: £9,000 a year
Labour: £6,000 a year
Green/SNP* : £0 a year.
Who are you going to vote for?
Miliband is in the same kind of no-man's land that Cameron is on immigration and the EU.
He can out-bid his major 2010 rival, but he's constantly being blind-sided by the 2015 newcomers.
* the devolved responsibility is acknowledged, but the general Labour signal is the same.
the Greens not in the picture....
its £6000 v £9000
Now who are you going to vote for?
0 -
I agree that it was bad politics by the Lib Dems. What disturbs me is how Labour benefit from it when it was Labour who abused their majority time and again on the same issue time and again.Flightpath said:Mr Thompson (9.09)
The LDs could have abstained. Given their pledge and the outcome of the election leading to coalition that would have been seen as a not unreasonable stance. Indeed on LD insistence the findings of the report were amended to make the situation easier for poorer students. The coalition agreement allowed the LDs to abstain. The tories were very generous on this. What we had was plain bad politics from the LDs, maybe they thought they could use the amendments to show they were useful, but they had no need to vote and they made a hash of explaining thier position.
We have had nothing but bad politics from the LDs since.
On a similar point I think the Labour Party made a hash of its post indyref position. It remains to be seen if the Tories can make anything out of the clear leftward shift in the SNP now that it wants to play Westminster politics.
Its like a butcher having a go at a vegetarian for attending a BBQ with their husband.0 -
SO I cannot see it as fair, if you are paying higher rate tax , why should you not get relief at that level. It is not a freebie and it is likely you will later pay high rate tax on your pension so is in fact very fair. I cannot see anything in it other than green cheese.SouthamObserver said:
A very fair argument. The bottom line is that on balance it is not unfair to end the additional benefits top rate taxpayers (such as myself) enjoy over and above those enjoyed by the majority of taxpayers. The issue is whether the money raised could be better applied. I tend to agree with you that it could. My sense is that most students - I have one son who has just left university and one who is still there - regard tuition fees as part and parcel of life and do not harbour any huge grudge about paying them. I actually think the present scheme is pretty good.rottenborough said:
There are two arguments in favour of higher rate tax relief on pensions contributions. The first is a general one that governments have subscribed to for decades: anything that encourages people to make their own pension provision is good. Secondly, the tax relief can actually be sort of seen to be a delayed tax - since in general pensioners pay tax on their pensions when they claim them.SouthamObserver said:Top rate tax payers get more pension perks than regular taxpayers at the moment. Can anyone explain why that is fair?
Clearly, students who end up in high paying jobs will be affected by the changes more than those who do not end up in such jobs as the new pension provisions will not apply to them.
Finally, the idea that even a significant minority will be affected by this is ridiculous.
Ed is certainly crap. But I just cannot see this being a big issue.
Personally, I don't think these arguments are strong enough to continue the system. However, I'm not persuaded that the alleged £2billion raised is best spent on the student fees system. As someone point out in NS yesterday, that's one hell of a lot of apprenticeships or technical vocational, FE places.0 -
OT - Cameron has often said to be a lucky PM. He certainly has been this week. The revelation of Jihadi John's identity completely pushed the Tory importation of Tory voters into the country off the front pages and reduced discussion of it to a minimum.0
-
As far as I can see Ed's tax is only likely to be a problem for the better paid in the public sector and the super rich who use pensions as tax avoidance. I am self employed, well paid and in my 50s. My pension pot is barely in 6 figures and will never get anywhere near £1m.
Doctors, senior managers in LG, education and the various public bodies, head teachers, middle ranking police officers, fire officers etc. these are the true millionaires of today, rich on funds they often don't even appreciate they have.
It seems a lot of trouble to go to to reduce the payback of really high earners.0 -
'Turnout' is a way of saying 'shit' isn't it? Bit harsh!TGOHF said:
Turnout.isam said:Regarding the last thread and the implication that Farages vote in thanet may be flaky due to large numbers of DNV support, I am sure we all remember that this was the line trotted out to justify opposing Reckless in Rochester.
Obviously it was proven wrong, but is there any reason why it would be more likely to be a successful betting strategy in thanet? Surely people who are not inclined to vote generally are less likely to vote in a by election than a GE?
The turnout was 50% in Rochester, pretty high for a by election, and a comfortable Ukip win... Same with Clacton
And my point is that DNV are more likely to vote in a GE than a by election, so higher turnout will help Ukip
0 -
Bizzare logic. People are also far more likely to take a free kick against the government in a by-election than a general election.isam said:
'Turnout' is a way of saying 'shit' isn't it? Bit harsh!TGOHF said:
Turnout.isam said:Regarding the last thread and the implication that Farages vote in thanet may be flaky due to large numbers of DNV support, I am sure we all remember that this was the line trotted out to justify opposing Reckless in Rochester.
Obviously it was proven wrong, but is there any reason why it would be more likely to be a successful betting strategy in thanet? Surely people who are not inclined to vote generally are less likely to vote in a by election than a GE?
The turnout was 50% in Rochester, pretty high for a by election, and a comfortable Ukip win... Same with Clacton
And my point is that DNV are more likely to vote in a GE than a by election, so higher turnout will help Ukip-1 -
The reduction of the maximum pension out size is fascinating. Don't these idiots know anything?
Two weeks ago when there was kerfuffle about GPs I listened to a series of GPs planning retirement in their early 50s because they had maxed out their private pension pots.
Ed Milibqnd is a true political appendix.0 -
Pension pot, even.0
-
I wonder if Jihadi John is still repaying his student loan ?SouthamObserver said:OT - Cameron has often said to be a lucky PM. He certainly has been this week. The revelation of Jihadi John's identity completely pushed the Tory importation of Tory voters into the country off the front pages and reduced discussion of it to a minimum.
0 -
We're all in this together. If you are among the highest earners in the country the last few years have been very, very good to you - in stark contrast to most folk. No-one likes to pay more tax. Some of us can afford to do so.malcolmg said:
SO I cannot see it as fair, if you are paying higher rate tax , why should you not get relief at that level. It is not a freebie and it is likely you will later pay high rate tax on your pension so is in fact very fair. I cannot see anything in it other than green cheese.SouthamObserver said:
A very fair argument. The bottom line is that on balance it is not unfair to end the additional benefits top rate taxpayers (such as myself) enjoy over and above those enjoyed by the majority of taxpayers. The issue is whether the money raised could be better applied. I tend to agree with you that it could. My sense is that most students - I have one son who has just left university and one who is still there - regard tuition fees as part and parcel of life and do not harbour any huge grudge about paying them. I actually think the present scheme is pretty good.rottenborough said:
There are two arguments in favour of higher rate tax relief on pensions contributions. The first is a general one that governments have subscribed to for decades: anything that encourages people to make their own pension provision is good. Secondly, the tax relief can actually be sort of seen to be a delayed tax - since in general pensioners pay tax on their pensions when they claim them.SouthamObserver said:Top rate tax payers get more pension perks than regular taxpayers at the moment. Can anyone explain why that is fair?
Clearly, students who end up in high paying jobs will be affected by the changes more than those who do not end up in such jobs as the new pension provisions will not apply to them.
Finally, the idea that even a significant minority will be affected by this is ridiculous.
Ed is certainly crap. But I just cannot see this being a big issue.
Personally, I don't think these arguments are strong enough to continue the system. However, I'm not persuaded that the alleged £2billion raised is best spent on the student fees system. As someone point out in NS yesterday, that's one hell of a lot of apprenticeships or technical vocational, FE places.
0 -
Poor old Flashy, his poster boys in England are strongly in favour of faith schools, while the diddy Cons in Scotland support Catholic schools. Still, IT'S ALL THE SNP'S FAULT!malcolmg said:
Harry , you need to get over your hatred of Catholics, it cannot be good for you. Also more unsuitable students wasting taxpayers money going to Uni is a bad thing. Money could be better spent on teaching them some decent skills.TGOHF said:
Yesterday the Fatcha- Major govt was to blame for not closing down sectairian schools in Scotland over the last 17 years - now they are to blame for more students going to Uni - like that is a bad thing. Was it Major- Maggies fault that we invaded Iraq ?Theuniondivvie said:TGOHF said:
Fatcha ! You could set your watch by the Nats...Alistair said:Tuition fees are a natural result of the massive increase in student numbers that the previous Conservative government created.
Poster doesn't mention Thatcher, 5 minutes later PB Loyalist crowbars in 'Fatcha'.
You could boil your eggs to the PB Loyalists.
0 -
That surely depends whether you are taking enough narcotics for the Green policy to seem credible.coolagorna said:
But in Lab/Con and Lib/Lab marginals in England withchestnut said:Imagine for a second that tuition fees are the biggest thing in our lives and a determining factor in how we vote.
The competing offers:
Tory/Lib Dem: £9,000 a year
Labour: £6,000 a year
Green/SNP* : £0 a year.
Who are you going to vote for?
Miliband is in the same kind of no-man's land that Cameron is on immigration and the EU.
He can out-bid his major 2010 rival, but he's constantly being blind-sided by the 2015 newcomers.
* the devolved responsibility is acknowledged, but the general Labour signal is the same.
the Greens not in the picture....
its £6000 v £9000
Now who are you going to vote for?
0 -
Well the poll was for a general election and Ukip are 11% clear, so how does that work out for you?Philip_Thompson said:
Bizzare logic. People are also far more likely to take a free kick against the government in a by-election than a general election.isam said:
'Turnout' is a way of saying 'shit' isn't it? Bit harsh!TGOHF said:
Turnout.isam said:Regarding the last thread and the implication that Farages vote in thanet may be flaky due to large numbers of DNV support, I am sure we all remember that this was the line trotted out to justify opposing Reckless in Rochester.
Obviously it was proven wrong, but is there any reason why it would be more likely to be a successful betting strategy in thanet? Surely people who are not inclined to vote generally are less likely to vote in a by election than a GE?
The turnout was 50% in Rochester, pretty high for a by election, and a comfortable Ukip win... Same with Clacton
And my point is that DNV are more likely to vote in a GE than a by election, so higher turnout will help Ukip
They'd be 15% clear if it were a by election?0 -
By the way I am willing to back farage at 1/2 here if anyone's wanting to take him on
4/7 at hills
OGH has already ducked it mind0 -
He lives abroad so does not need to.Alanbrooke said:
I wonder if Jihadi John is still repaying his student loan ?SouthamObserver said:OT - Cameron has often said to be a lucky PM. He certainly has been this week. The revelation of Jihadi John's identity completely pushed the Tory importation of Tory voters into the country off the front pages and reduced discussion of it to a minimum.
0 -
Pay a lot of tax, don't like to talk about it mateSouthamObserver said:
We're all in this together. If you are among the highest earners in the country the last few years have been very, very good to you - in stark contrast to most folk. No-one likes to pay more tax. Some of us can afford to do so.malcolmg said:
SO I cannot see it as fair, if you are paying higher rate tax , why should you not get relief at that level. It is not a freebie and it is likely you will later pay high rate tax on your pension so is in fact very fair. I cannot see anything in it other than green cheese.SouthamObserver said:
A very fair argument. The bottom line is that on balance it is not unfair to end the additional benefits top rate taxpayers (such as myself) enjoy over and above those enjoyed by the majority of taxpayers. The issue is whether the money raised could be better applied. I tend to agree with you that it could. My sense is that most students - I have one son who has just left university and one who is still there - regard tuition fees as part and parcel of life and do not harbour any huge grudge about paying them. I actually think the present scheme is pretty good.rottenborough said:
There are two arguments in favour of higher rate tax relief on pensions contributions. The first is a general one that governments have subscribed to for decades: anything that encourages people to make their own pension provision is good. Secondly, the tax relief can actually be sort of seen to be a delayed tax - since in general pensioners pay tax on their pensions when they claim them.SouthamObserver said:Top rate tax payers get more pension perks than regular taxpayers at the moment. Can anyone explain why that is fair?
Clearly, students who end up in high paying jobs will be affected by the changes more than those who do not end up in such jobs as the new pension provisions will not apply to them.
Finally, the idea that even a significant minority will be affected by this is ridiculous.
Ed is certainly crap. But I just cannot see this being a big issue.
Personally, I don't think these arguments are strong enough to continue the system. However, I'm not persuaded that the alleged £2billion raised is best spent on the student fees system. As someone point out in NS yesterday, that's one hell of a lot of apprenticeships or technical vocational, FE places.0 -
Rottenborough
"There are two arguments in favour of higher rate tax relief on pensions contributions. The first is a general one that governments have subscribed to for decades: anything that encourages people to make their own pension provision is good. Secondly, the tax relief can actually be sort of seen to be a delayed tax - since in general pensioners pay tax on their pensions when they claim them.
Personally, I don't think these arguments are strong enough to continue the system. However, I'm not persuaded that the alleged £2billion raised is best spent on the student fees system. As someone point out in NS yesterday, that's one hell of a lot of apprenticeships or technical vocational, FE places."
Very good post. I agree with you except that had he just removed the iniquitous higher rate tax relief on contributions it would have lost him votes. It is so grossly unfair that someone had to have the bottle to do it but only by linking it to tuition fees was he able to make it electorally feasible. Read downthread. The well paid just hate contributing
0 -
If you aren't the kind to look at the financial detail in depth, what chance is there that you're the kind to know that you're in a marginal?coolagorna said:But in Lab/Con and Lib/Lab marginals in England with
the Greens not in the picture....
its £6000 v £9000
Now who are you going to vote for?
0 -
It always helps to state your tax status on here when talking about tax, otherwise people start talking about sweeties, sucking teats, clients votes etc.isam said:
Pay a lot of tax, don't like to talk about it mateSouthamObserver said:
We're all in this together. If you are among the highest earners in the country the last few years have been very, very good to you - in stark contrast to most folk. No-one likes to pay more tax. Some of us can afford to do so.malcolmg said:
SO I cannot see it as fair, if you are paying higher rate tax , why should you not get relief at that level. It is not a freebie and it is likely you will later pay high rate tax on your pension so is in fact very fair. I cannot see anything in it other than green cheese.SouthamObserver said:
A very fair argument. The bottom line is that on balance it is not unfair to end the additional benefits top rate taxpayers (such as myself) enjoy over and above those enjoyed by the majority of taxpayers. The issue is whether the money raised could be better applied. I tend to agree with you that it could. My sense is that most students - I have one son who has just left university and one who is still there - regard tuition fees as part and parcel of life and do not harbour any huge grudge about paying them. I actually think the present scheme is pretty good.rottenborough said:
There are two arguments in favour of higher rate tax relief on pensions contributions. The first is a general one that governments have subscribed to for decades: anything that encourages people to make their own pension provision is good. Secondly, the tax relief can actually be sort of seen to be a delayed tax - since in general pensioners pay tax on their pensions when they claim them.SouthamObserver said:Top rate tax payers get more pension perks than regular taxpayers at the moment. Can anyone explain why that is fair?
Clearly, students who end up in high paying jobs will be affected by the changes more than those who do not end up in such jobs as the new pension provisions will not apply to them.
Finally, the idea that even a significant minority will be affected by this is ridiculous.
Ed is certainly crap. But I just cannot see this being a big issue.
Personally, I don't think these arguments are strong enough to continue the system. However, I'm not persuaded that the alleged £2billion raised is best spent on the student fees system. As someone point out in NS yesterday, that's one hell of a lot of apprenticeships or technical vocational, FE places.
0 -
hey when I said that yesterday I had loads of defenders of the current mess swearing HMRC religiously follow people overseas and that no-one will escape the diligence of our tax authorities in making loans be repaid.SouthamObserver said:
He lives abroad so does not need to.Alanbrooke said:
I wonder if Jihadi John is still repaying his student loan ?SouthamObserver said:OT - Cameron has often said to be a lucky PM. He certainly has been this week. The revelation of Jihadi John's identity completely pushed the Tory importation of Tory voters into the country off the front pages and reduced discussion of it to a minimum.
When I laughed I was told I'd lost touch with reality.0 -
The wodges of "Winning here" leaflets through your door :P ?chestnut said:
If you aren't the kind to look at the financial detail in depth, what chance is there that you're the kind to know that you're in a marginal?coolagorna said:But in Lab/Con and Lib/Lab marginals in England with
the Greens not in the picture....
its £6000 v £9000
Now who are you going to vote for?0 -
If it was a by-election I'd expect they'd be 30% clear.isam said:
Well the poll was for a general election and Ukip are 11% clear, so how does that work out for you?Philip_Thompson said:
Bizzare logic. People are also far more likely to take a free kick against the government in a by-election than a general election.isam said:
'Turnout' is a way of saying 'shit' isn't it? Bit harsh!TGOHF said:
Turnout.isam said:Regarding the last thread and the implication that Farages vote in thanet may be flaky due to large numbers of DNV support, I am sure we all remember that this was the line trotted out to justify opposing Reckless in Rochester.
Obviously it was proven wrong, but is there any reason why it would be more likely to be a successful betting strategy in thanet? Surely people who are not inclined to vote generally are less likely to vote in a by election than a GE?
The turnout was 50% in Rochester, pretty high for a by election, and a comfortable Ukip win... Same with Clacton
And my point is that DNV are more likely to vote in a GE than a by election, so higher turnout will help Ukip
They'd be 15% clear if it were a by election?0 -
I think you may have been right, strangely.Alanbrooke said:
hey when I said that yesterday I had loads of defenders of the current mess swearing HMRC religiously follow people overseas and that no-one will escape the diligence of our tax authorities in making loans be repaid.SouthamObserver said:
He lives abroad so does not need to.Alanbrooke said:
I wonder if Jihadi John is still repaying his student loan ?SouthamObserver said:OT - Cameron has often said to be a lucky PM. He certainly has been this week. The revelation of Jihadi John's identity completely pushed the Tory importation of Tory voters into the country off the front pages and reduced discussion of it to a minimum.
When I laughed I was told I'd lost touch with reality.
0 -
Not that anyone bothers - but the maximum fund size is 1.25million at the moment - reduced from 1.5 million by the coalition last year. In 2010 (last year of Labour) it was 1.8 million having steadily increased over the years.
So Labour seem to be jumping onto something that the Coalition have already done.0 -
Oh also offering an even money bet on South Thanet
Ukip (-6.5)
Cons (+6.5)0 -
Catching up on today's contributions and this one from @richardDodd stood out.richardDodd said:Personally I am fed up with the constant attacks on my income by Tax grabbing Governments..When will they realise that my money is entirely earned by me and I will take every step possible within the law to make sure I retain as much of it as possible... I do not work my tail off for politicians to play with their pet projects.
If an individual wants to go to University,presumable to obtain a degree and a higher salary over his life then that's great.. don't expect me to pay for it.
Jack W..you are right .. coolagorna is extremely funny.
For me the clear post of the day so far.
Bring back the Like button!0 -
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/24/uk-will-need-to-import-over-half-of-its-food-within-a-generation-farmers-warn
Aside from national food security now being deemed as irrelevant as national energy security how are we to pay for all these extra imports given that the UK's current account deficit is already at an all time high ?
Presumably by selling houses to each other, by being world leaders in outreach diversity coordinators and through our high productivity hand car wash industry.
0 -
This 'tory led' government is reducing its spending and plans to continue to do so. Its not easy cutting govt spending - as this article points out.richardDodd said:Coolagorna..Maybe you should go back to school to learn to read.I did not say I don't pay taxes..which I do and have done since starting work in 1954..I do object to seeing my hard earned dosh and that of other people being squandered by incompetent idiots in government and will therefore take every step I can to reduce their spend..It might make them think a little more
I do not live in the UK..but still pay considerable amounts of tax there so that you and the other residents can enjoy all those goodies you listed..Enjoy..
http://www.economicsuk.com/blog/002073.html#more
And especially so following 13 years of Labour govt.
''In inflation-adjusted terms, 2013-14 prices, there was a massive increase in total managed expenditure over the 2000-2010 period. Spending in real terms in 2009-10, £737.3bn, was 51% higher than it was in 1999-2000, £488.5bn.
Think about that for a second. In a decade, the size of the state increased by just over a half. It was the biggest sustained increase in public spending in British history.''0 -
@Nigel4England
Well, you pays your penny and makes your choice, Nigel.
I started backing NOM just after the previous election and haven't stopped yet, but if you know different, good luck to you.
Wouldn't try to second guess Barney....or Jonjo O'Neill. Far too difficult.0 -
David, it will affect more mature workers in private sector who have / had final salary pensions and are far from super rich.DavidL said:As far as I can see Ed's tax is only likely to be a problem for the better paid in the public sector and the super rich who use pensions as tax avoidance. I am self employed, well paid and in my 50s. My pension pot is barely in 6 figures and will never get anywhere near £1m.
Doctors, senior managers in LG, education and the various public bodies, head teachers, middle ranking police officers, fire officers etc. these are the true millionaires of today, rich on funds they often don't even appreciate they have.
It seems a lot of trouble to go to to reduce the payback of really high earners.0 -
Oh I wouldn't worry about it, you see if we keep importing people on low wages the whole thing fixes itself.another_richard said:http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/24/uk-will-need-to-import-over-half-of-its-food-within-a-generation-farmers-warn
Aside from national food security now being deemed as irrelevant as national energy security how are we to pay for all these extra imports given that the UK's current account deficit is already at an all time high ?
Presumably by selling houses to each other, by being world leaders in outreach diversity coordinators and through our high productivity hand car wash industry.
0 -
Opinium and Sunday Times YG due later this evening.0
-
And it's a worrying trend. A million quid gets you 30k index linked at 65 with spouse's pension. Comfortable sure, better than the vast majority get, doubtless. However it's hardly rolling in 50 quid notes pouring champagne territory is it? Now how much further are they going to go? 750k? 500k? (or fifteen grand a year if you like)? Bear in mind that's a pot that's been worked for and saved by folk in normal industry mostly (we are not all bankers), and is the public sector with the true fat cat pension arrangements (like MP's!) going to be treated the same? It seems not.weejonnie said:Not that anyone bothers - but the maximum fund size is 1.25million at the moment - reduced from 1.5 million by the coalition last year. In 2010 (last year of Labour) it was 1.8 million having steadily increased over the years.
So Labour seem to be jumping onto something that the Coalition have already done.0 -
If Miliband is to believed he has to find some 2.5 to 3 billion a year extra to fund universities. English universities. The effect on students will be minimalPulpstar said:
Thnk about that from the other side this is one Labour proposal that is financially free in the next parliament pretty much.foxinsoxuk said:
. It is their younger siblings (mostly under voting age) that would get the dubious benefit of paying off their debt 20 years in the future rather than 25.coolagorna said:
Most pensioners never had it so good as when Brown wassaddo said:This does effect pretty much everyone savirg for a pension.
A max tax free pot of £1m is too small for a decent pension for anyone retiring in 5 plus years time. This change effects everyone.
More over this potential raid reminds everyone of Labour's near criminal destruction of the pension system last time they were in power.
We will all be truly f@cked if Miliband gets in is the only conclusion from this proposed change
the chancellor
Winter Fuel Allowance introduced and increased at every.budget
as well as Pension Credits and of course the massive and
necessary increases in NHS spending improved ordinary
pensioners lives no end
Aaah but of course its only the rich pensioners that most PB
commenters and the Tory press and BBC care about hence the
fake crocodile tears for them over this excellent cut in Tuition Fees
policy
As NP says this will have little effect on the GE..Rich pensioners
mainly vote Tory already and so this policy can only be a vote
winner if enough Students can be arsed to get themselves out
and vote after their disullision thanks to Cleggs mob last time
Ed really has the negative Midas touch. Everything he touches turns to crap.0 -
@Saddened
Not sure what you mean by 'cut and dried'.
I think NOM should be about 20/1 on, which may be a tad short of a certainty but nevertheless cut and dried enough for me.
As to the nature of the next Government, that's far from c&d but I see no reason to question the accuracy of the polls, so I suppose I'd have to say Labour minority or Labour Coalition most likely. And of course Ed Is PM, crap or not.
Sometimes things are as they appear to be.0 -
@Philip_Thompson
''Because Labour have such a good track record on student fees?'
Well Labour only introduced student fees and then tripled them and as Roger says
'Labour really can be an an honest alternative.'0 -
That was dealt with more than one hundred and fifty years ago with the depopulation of Ireland. Nowadays their food surplus is roughly equal to our deficit. I think most of their trade flows through Britain.another_richard said:http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/24/uk-will-need-to-import-over-half-of-its-food-within-a-generation-farmers-warn
Aside from national food security now being deemed as irrelevant as national energy security how are we to pay for all these extra imports given that the UK's current account deficit is already at an all time high ?
Presumably by selling houses to each other, by being world leaders in outreach diversity coordinators and through our high productivity hand car wash industry.0 -
"Crossover.....Please give us Crossover!"Sunil_Prasannan said:Opinium and Sunday Times YG due later this evening.
0 -
A comment I hear in Italy quite a lot is "Where does all the money go" Like most Europeans,Italians are quite rightly puzzled as to what happens to the massive taxes they have to pay.The most common complaint is that none of it seems to come back to them in any discernible form or as an improvement in their life style..Just where does it all go.
This is a question everyone should be asking their Governments.
If they want the tax..your money..then bloody justify it.0 -
But we needn't worry, Nick. I'm sure that the unions are explaining the implications of Labour's pension proposals to their members in a unbiased and dispassionate wayNickPalmer said:I'm not sure that media coverage is heavy enough to create a strong impression one way or the other for those who just skim the news. For the minority who dig into the detail, not being able to deposit more than £30,000/year tax-free in a pension fund doesn't sound a very serious problem to most people, and those £53,000 nurses aren't very common, but on the other hand students tend to be sceptical and low-turnout. I'll be interested to see if it comes up on the doorstep this weekend.
0 -
Betty Boothroyd is on R4 criticising recent H of C 'reforms'.0
-
Labour's record on tuition fee promises makes Nick Clegg look like an honest car salesmanjohn_zims said:@Philip_Thompson
''Because Labour have such a good track record on student fees?'
Well Labour only introduced student fees and then tripled them and as Roger says
'Labour really can be an an honest alternative.'0 -
Switzerland ?richardDodd said:A comment Ihear in Italy quite a lot is "Where does all the money go Like most Europeans,Italians are quite rightly puzzled as to what happens to the massive taxes they have to pay.The most common complaint is that none of it seems to come back to them in any discernible form or as an improvement in their life style..Just where does it all go.
0 -
How many Labour-affiliated union members do you think this will affect?Charles said:
But we needn't worry, Nick. I'm sure that the unions are explaining the implications of Labour's pension proposals to their members in a unbiased and dispassionate wayNickPalmer said:I'm not sure that media coverage is heavy enough to create a strong impression one way or the other for those who just skim the news. For the minority who dig into the detail, not being able to deposit more than £30,000/year tax-free in a pension fund doesn't sound a very serious problem to most people, and those £53,000 nurses aren't very common, but on the other hand students tend to be sceptical and low-turnout. I'll be interested to see if it comes up on the doorstep this weekend.
0 -
As a matter of principle, I am against all social engineering inspired taxpayer funded bribes includng ISAs and pension contributions. It is up to individuals whether they want to save or not. I don't see why the rest of us should subsidise them.
These bribes also have unintended consequences. Many people are encouraged to save for a pension when it is against their financial interests. They will lose in benefits what small income they get from their pension. It is classic mis-selling by government.
Who gains from this? The financial services sector gains at the tax-payer expense. Most people don't benefit from an ISA. The dividend/interest income is trivial and any capital gains are usually within the allowance. Financial services cream off the benefit in fees, low interest rates and massive marketing expenses. Similarly there is a huge pension industry funded by taxpayers. I'd like to see the whole lot abolished with enormous savings. But this takes political bravery.
Again Ed M has demonstrated his bravery. I also think it is politically astute. Most people won't read the small print. The story is - Student fees at £9,000 were a bad thing, so cutting them is a good thing. Removing perks from people on £150K salaries or £1 million pension pots can't be bad. End of story.
I expect a small tick up for Labour in the polls. Personally it would encourage me to vote Labour if I were in a Labour marginal (which I'm not).
0 -
foxinsox says -- ''Pensions get tax relief not as a perk, but because they are deferred income. It is very likely that I will be paying higher rate tax, even as a pensioner, so the money lost to the exchecquer in this relief does tend to return (as long as I retire in this country.
The upshot of these changes (incidentally one LD policy I disagree with) will be early retirement in the public sector and accountancy dodges in the private sector. As well as discouraging thrift and saving, it is likely to not raise the money required as paying this tax is voluntary!''
Correct and a good point about deferred income. If contributions were taxed then taxed again as pension income (and taxed again as dividends paid to pensions industry in the meantime ??) then we would get double, triple taxation of income.
Its a grotesque policy in every respect
0 -
Did this make any of the TV bulletins?
Swine flu: Nearly 1000 dead in India
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-31636253
0
