I'm not sure your interpretation of Andulacia is correct. Andulacia in the far south of Spain is one of the poorest and most negatively affected by the Eurozone crisis. It has been a PSOE stronghold for a very, very long time, with them regularly polling more than 50% of the vote.
The 2012 local elections there saw the PP creep above the PSOE for the first time. Their drop in support in 2015 was - to a large extent - just a return to normality. Also, I didn't see any polls for the Andulacia local elections, so I'm not sure where your contention that the PP did much worse than forecast came from.
Really, the big surprise in Andulacia was that Podemos, which should have done really well in a region with unemployment of 42%, got just 15% of the vote.
It was PP's worst result there since 1990. They lost half a million votes. In one go.
When are the Tories going to come out with policies that appeal to the Midlands marginals? Train fares and IHT are very "South East" centric - are they aiming for bigger majorities there, while leaving the populist field free to Labour?
They aren't. Their upper echelons are packed full of people who have no feel for life outside London and its hinterland.
Same as Labour then.
Labour's problem is more that it doesn't understand the South.
Outside London that would indeed seem to be an issue, but I've never been clear on why. Sure the South is generally better off than in most places, and with fewer large urban areas, but it doesn't lack for the opposite either, and in plenty of places the LDs are the natural opposition to Tories, when there's no reason Labour couldn't fill that role as far as I can see.
'If Cameron had had his way, the jihadis could be in control of Damascus by now. Where is the accountability? William Hague took the fall for the embarrassing failure with parliament – after a decent interval he was removed from the Foreign Office – but Cameron is the Teflon man here. Having got away with bombing Libya (with barely a thought for the poor Libyans, whose country is now a tragic mess) he must have arrogantly thought that Syria would make a nice encore.
This is all the more deplorable because Cameron’s unthinking policy on Syria can only have fuelled the rise of support for jihadism among British Muslim youth. To call for the overthrow of the secular Syrian government, to demonise it out of all proportion (and remember, this is the same President Assad who was having tea with the Queen in 2006), to predict its imminent fall, as Cameron and Hague were doing in 2012 and 2013 – and then to wail as though it was nothing to do with them when British Muslims set off to help hasten said overthrow – is inconsistent and nonsensical.'
Tory IHT is a big winner even tho it doesn't affect that many. They'll also be v happy with front page coverage: 3.2 million (MoS, ST, SunTel, Sun Exp) vs Labours 325,000 (Obs, I)
We always need to be careful when taking at face value what people say in polls. If asked
The Tory IHT move is an interesting one. It is clearly another policy aimed at UKIPers and may well appeal to them. But it also plays into the Tories are for the rich meme. That will galvanise anti- Tory voters and so will help Labour (and perhaps LDs in Tory/LD marginals). What it also does, of course, is frees up Labour to use upper rate pension relief as a no comeback source of funding. With all the recent Tory policy announcements and Ed is a traitor claims you have to assume they have been focus-grouped to death. But have they been completely thought-through, I wonder?
I think its more about motivating the ordinary middle classes to get out and vote. Many of those will have estates worth more than the current IHT threshold but wont feel rich because of the part of the country they live in, this is a reason for them to be bothered to go down to the polling station which they might otherwise not have found.
If that is the case it just shows how stupid the Cameroons are. Why do they need more people in the SE to turn out and vote for them ? Bigger majorities won't bring them much by way of seats. They need policies for the parts of the country beyond Banbury.
If it motivates people to vote Tory in seats like Hendon, Harrow East, Croydon Central, Brentford & Isleworth, Ealing Acton, Battersea, then it will have done its job. I can't see it making much difference elsewhere.
As I said it may give them a handful of seats, but in an election their priority is to secure as many marginals as possible, and most of those aren't in the South East. They need policies for the Midlands, North and Scotland.
However they needed them about 2 years ago to build up a better jump off point for this GE. Instead they subscribed to kippers come home theory and did bugger all to build support. Looking at this juncture of the election that's a seriously bad call.
If the Tories were to hold all (or all but one or two) of their London seats, their chances of being the largest party would be good.
Maybe, but if they'd got their act together in the Midlands and North they could be looking at a majority.
OT Local elections in Japan today. Some shops are doing voter discounts (in Japan you can get a receipt that says you voted, but not who for.)
Has this ever been done in the UK? If not would it be legal? I guess you could use a selfie of yourself outside the polling station to do without a receipt.
From last night, this really shows why the Tories are so hated and called the nasty party, people with many houses , unlimited spare rooms, lackeys , money etc and yet they still want to shove the unfortunate poor into one room. Shameful. Charles said:
» show previous quotes I pay plenty in taxes, and I'm fine with that.
I just want it to be spent more productively than giving an individual a spare room unless they need it. There is too much need to waste resources like that.
care to comment on Overseas Aid ?
I have never voted Tory in my life, but I still don't see what's wrong with not paying for someone to have spare room if it is indeed a spare room, that is it is a room they do not need. Millions upon millions of Tory voters will not be the ones with unlimited money and rooms (they do get votes in poor areas too remember, just not enough to win in them), but paying for unnecessary things hurts those people too.
If the rooms are not in fact spare, then sure someone should be exempted or the policy clarified to make sure such people are not swept up in it, but the principle seems fair. Many things are ideal but not fair to provide - and yes, the rich absolutely should pay more to make things much fairer.
Overseas aid? I'm fine with it in principle, it can do a lot of good, although ti should be much tighter controlled.
Living with a mortgage my house has a spare room which we deliberately decided for when we moved in. Guess what though, we pay extra each month as a result of that.
I pay for my own home and through taxes for other people's homes too. If people genuinely need that fair enough, but if they don't why should they get that? It's unfair that I pay for my own home and for spare rooms other people don't need. It's also unfair that people who do need bigger homes can't get them if those who don't need them won't move.
From last night, this really shows why the Tories are so hated and called the nasty party, people with many houses , unlimited spare rooms, lackeys , money etc and yet they still want to shove the unfortunate poor into one room. Shameful. Charles said:
» show previous quotes I pay plenty in taxes, and I'm fine with that.
I just want it to be spent more productively than giving an individual a spare room unless they need it. There is too much need to waste resources like that.
care to comment on Overseas Aid ?
I have never voted Tory in my life, but I still don't see what's wrong with not paying for someone to have spare room if it is indeed a spare room, that is it is a room they do not need. Millions upon millions of Tory voters will not be the ones with unlimited money and rooms (they do get votes in poor areas too remember, just not enough to win in them), but paying for unnecessary things hurts those people too.
If the rooms are not in fact spare, then sure someone should be exempted or the policy clarified to make sure such people are not swept up in it, but the principle seems fair. Many things are ideal but not fair to provide - and yes, the rich absolutely should pay more to make things much fairer.
Overseas aid? I'm fine with it in principle, it can do a lot of good, although ti should be much tighter controlled.
There are many circumstances of a "spare room", ie you might have children and hope that your grandchildren can visit you now and again. You miss the point in that the people demonising it have spare houses not just spare rooms, and where are the thousands of spare "smaller" houses to move them too. It is a horrific policy thought up by rich gits who have spare houses, is shows the Tories for what they are , uncaring nasty barstewards, happy to rob any poor person to keep themselves rolling in it.
When are the Tories going to come out with policies that appeal to the Midlands marginals? Train fares and IHT are very "South East" centric - are they aiming for bigger majorities there, while leaving the populist field free to Labour?
Yes, my patch is a reasonably prosperous Midlands constituency. The number of homes worth over £1 million is negligible - a typical large family home in a sought-after area is £700K. I can't imagine that it's very different in the others.
When are the Tories going to come out with policies that appeal to the Midlands marginals? Train fares and IHT are very "South East" centric - are they aiming for bigger majorities there, while leaving the populist field free to Labour?
A smallish swing to the Tories in and around London, offset by larger swings against them in the rest of England, is a highly plausible scenario.
The Midlands are going to be very difficult for Labour. Looking at sub-samples (I know), the Euro results and also at council elections, there does not seem to be a big move to them here. It's one of the reasons why I think Labour will do well to stand still next month.
Noticed that the Tories have become a lot more visible in W&L, btw, this weekend. many more posters up now. It's as if they realise they actually have to put some work in to the seat.
From last night, this really shows why the Tories are so hated and called the nasty party, people with many houses , unlimited spare rooms, lackeys , money etc and yet they still want to shove the unfortunate poor into one room. Shameful. Charles said:
» show previous quotes I pay plenty in taxes, and I'm fine with that.
I just want it to be spent more productively than giving an individual a spare room unless they need it. There is too much need to waste resources like that.
care to comment on Overseas Aid ?
I have never voted Tory in my life, but I still don't see what's wrong with not paying for someone to have spare room if it is indeed a spare room, that is it is a room they do not need. Millions upon millions of Tory voters will not be the ones with unlimited money and rooms (they do get votes in poor areas too remember, just not enough to win in them), but paying for unnecessary things hurts those people too.
If the rooms are not in fact spare, then sure someone should be exempted or the policy clarified to make sure such people are not swept up in it, but the principle seems fair. Many things are ideal but not fair to provide - and yes, the rich absolutely should pay more to make things much fairer.
Overseas aid? I'm fine with it in principle, it can do a lot of good, although ti should be much tighter controlled.
There are many circumstances of a "spare room", ie you might have children and hope that your grandchildren can visit you now and again. You miss the point in that the people demonising it have spare houses not just spare rooms, and where are the thousands of spare "smaller" houses to move them too. It is a horrific policy thought up by rich gits who have spare houses, is shows the Tories for what they are , uncaring nasty barstewards, happy to rob any poor person to keep themselves rolling in it.
I don't have a spare house. When I was young I did sometimes sleep over at my grandparents house, a one bedroom bungalow. We slept in sleeping bags on the floor in the dining room. That was fun, camping at your grandparents was great fun as a kid. Not sure why my grandparents should have moved into a bigger home as a result using your logic.
From last night, this really shows why the Tories are so hated and called the nasty party, people with many houses , unlimited spare rooms, lackeys , money etc and yet they still want to shove the unfortunate poor into one room. Shameful. Charles said:
» show previous quotes I pay plenty in taxes, and I'm fine with that.
I just want it to be spent more productively than giving an individual a spare room unless they need it. There is too much need to waste resources like that.
care to comment on Overseas Aid ?
There is clearly a role for overseas aid. For instance there is an effective programme in Ethiopia encouraging women to enter secondary education - this seems to have a significant impact on political radicalism in society as a whole. Fundamentally, overseas aid can and should be an attempt to *fix* problems rather than endlessly having to fight wars once they bubble up out of control.
But I am very sceptical about 0.7% good, 0.69% bad. They should spend the maximum amount of money that (a) they can afford and (b) can be spent productively with a net benefit to the UK
From last night, this really shows why the Tories are so hated and called the nasty party, people with many houses , unlimited spare rooms, lackeys , money etc and yet they still want to shove the unfortunate poor into one room. Shameful. Charles said:
» show previous quotes I pay plenty in taxes, and I'm fine with that.
I just want it to be spent more productively than giving an individual a spare room unless they need it. There is too much need to waste resources like that.
care to comment on Overseas Aid ?
I have never voted Tory in my life, but I still don't see what's wrong with not paying for someone to have spare room if it is indeed a spare room, that is it is a room they do not need. Millions upon millions of Tory voters will not be the ones with unlimited money and rooms (they do get votes in poor areas too remember, just not enough to win in them), but paying for unnecessary things hurts those people too.
If the rooms are not in fact spare, then sure someone should be exempted or the policy clarified to make sure such people are not swept up in it, but the principle seems fair. Many things are ideal but not fair to provide - and yes, the rich absolutely should pay more to make things much fairer.
Overseas aid? I'm fine with it in principle, it can do a lot of good, although ti should be much tighter controlled.
There are many circumstances of a "spare room", ie you might have children and hope that your grandchildren can visit you now and again. You miss the point in that the people demonising it have spare houses not just spare rooms, and where are the thousands of spare "smaller" houses to move them too. It is a horrific policy thought up by rich gits who have spare houses, is shows the Tories for what they are , uncaring nasty barstewards, happy to rob any poor person to keep themselves rolling in it.
The unexplained £12bn will make the bedroom tax look like a picnic too
From last night, this really shows why the Tories are so hated and called the nasty party, people with many houses , unlimited spare rooms, lackeys , money etc and yet they still want to shove the unfortunate poor into one room. Shameful. Charles said:
» show previous quotes I pay plenty in taxes, and I'm fine with that.
I just want it to be spent more productively than giving an individual a spare room unless they need it. There is too much need to waste resources like that.
care to comment on Overseas Aid ?
I have never voted Tory in my life, but I still don't see what's wrong with not paying for someone to have spare room if it is indeed a spare room, that is it is a room they do not need. Millions upon millions of Tory voters will not be the ones with unlimited money and rooms (they do get votes in poor areas too remember, just not enough to win in them), but paying for unnecessary things hurts those people too.
If the rooms are not in fact spare, then sure someone should be exempted or the policy clarified to make sure such people are not swept up in it, but the principle seems fair. Many things are ideal but not fair to provide - and yes, the rich absolutely should pay more to make things much fairer.
Overseas aid? I'm fine with it in principle, it can do a lot of good, although ti should be much tighter controlled.
Living with a mortgage my house has a spare room which we deliberately decided for when we moved in. Guess what though, we pay extra each month as a result of that.
I pay for my own home and through taxes for other people's homes too. If people genuinely need that fair enough, but if they don't why should they get that? It's unfair that I pay for my own home and for spare rooms other people don't need. It's also unfair that people who do need bigger homes can't get them if those who don't need them won't move.
Another greedy Tory, happy to have a poor person out on the street. Greedy and grasping , I have a nice house but should have more , get it off those poor people, why have they got a spare cupboard on a sink estate.
I agree with those that say policy announcements do not sway people. I think that's wishful thinking from those answering the poll. We see that all the time in that the most important thing for most people about a policy is who is proposing it, and it has to be pretty amazing to break through to the other side, and so even if it is objectively what they want you might get something like 'Oh, it's not a bad idea, but you cannot trust x to do it, and it isn't in the right way'.
I think the good lord has it right with this bit:
As my focus groups with undecided voters have shown, little of substance is getting through to most people but what they do hear reinforces what they already think about the parties – good and bad
That is, perceptions of what the parties are like are going to colour how a policy from them will be interpreted, limiting the opportunity for a new policy to change someone's actual view of that party.
Totally agree - it is all about perception. Not only does that reinforce existing opinion - it also galvanises people to turn out and vote, or makes them think, nah - I won't bother. Hence my point about the Tory policies and Ed is going to be a traitor claims. For anti-Tories both strongly reinforce the idea that the Tories are the nasty party only concerned with looking after the best off. Combined with EdM not yet self-immolating and the incentive for non-Tories to get out and vote has been increased over the last two weeks.
When are the Tories going to come out with policies that appeal to the Midlands marginals? Train fares and IHT are very "South East" centric - are they aiming for bigger majorities there, while leaving the populist field free to Labour?
Yes, my patch is a reasonably prosperous Midlands constituency. The number of homes worth over £1 million is negligible - a typical large family home in a sought-after area is £700K. I can't imagine that it's very different in the others.
£700k plus a few extra assets currently get taxed above £650k for couples. Will cover many and many more over the next 5 years.
Labour's plan is to increase taxes, borrowing and debt. Same old same old.
From last night, this really shows why the Tories are so hated and called the nasty party, people with many houses , unlimited spare rooms, lackeys , money etc and yet they still want to shove the unfortunate poor into one room. Shameful. Charles said:
» show previous quotes I pay plenty in taxes, and I'm fine with that.
I just want it to be spent more productively than giving an individual a spare room unless they need it. There is too much need to waste resources like that.
care to comment on Overseas Aid ?
I have never voted Tory in my life, but I still don't see what's wrong with not paying for someone to have spare room if it is indeed a spare room, that is it is a room they do not need. Millions upon millions of Tory voters will not be the ones with unlimited money and rooms (they do get votes in poor areas too remember, just not enough to win in them), but paying for unnecessary things hurts those people too.
If the rooms are not in fact spare, then sure someone should be exempted or the policy clarified to make sure such people are not swept up in it, but the principle seems fair. Many things are ideal but not fair to provide - and yes, the rich absolutely should pay more to make things much fairer.
Overseas aid? I'm fine with it in principle, it can do a lot of good, although ti should be much tighter controlled.
Living with a mortgage my house has a spare room which we deliberately decided for when we moved in. Guess what though, we pay extra each month as a result of that.
I pay for my own home and through taxes for other people's homes too. If people genuinely need that fair enough, but if they don't why should they get that? It's unfair that I pay for my own home and for spare rooms other people don't need. It's also unfair that people who do need bigger homes can't get them if those who don't need them won't move.
Another greedy Tory, happy to have a poor person out on the street. Greedy and grasping , I have a nice house but should have more , get it off those poor people, why have they got a spare cupboard on a sink estate.
Don't turn nasty and personal. I never said anything nasty or personal against anyone else. Shows you up more than me.
I'd have a lot more respect for the Greens if they said the problems we face are too many people, not too many rich people. A one-child per family policy would cut our planet's carbon footprint.... But lots of Greens seem to have a tribe of snot-goblins in tow, so I'm not expecting to hear it from them any time soon.
From last night, this really shows why the Tories are so hated and called the nasty party, people with many houses , unlimited spare rooms, lackeys , money etc and yet they still want to shove the unfortunate poor into one room. Shameful. Charles said:
» show previous quotes I pay plenty in taxes, and I'm fine with that.
I just want it to be spent more productively than giving an individual a spare room unless they need it. There is too much need to waste resources like that.
care to comment on Overseas Aid ?
I have never voted Tory in my life, but I still don't see what's wrong with not paying for someone to have spare room if it is indeed a spare room, that is it is a room they do not need. Millions upon millions of Tory voters will not be the ones with unlimited money and rooms (they do get votes in poor areas too remember, just not enough to win in them), but paying for unnecessary things hurts those people too.
If the rooms are not in fact spare, then sure someone should be exempted or the policy clarified to make sure such people are not swept up in it, but the principle seems fair. Many things are ideal but not fair to provide - and yes, the rich absolutely should pay more to make things much fairer.
Overseas aid? I'm fine with it in principle, it can do a lot of good, although ti should be much tighter controlled.
There are many circumstances of a "spare room", ie you might have children and hope that your grandchildren can visit you now and again. You miss the point in that the people demonising it have spare houses not just spare rooms, and where are the thousands of spare "smaller" houses to move them too. It is a horrific policy thought up by rich gits who have spare houses, is shows the Tories for what they are , uncaring nasty barstewards, happy to rob any poor person to keep themselves rolling in it.
It was poorly drafted policy, have a son in the military based overseas and want to keep a room for him to return to? Too bad, that'll cost you.
More than that, it's just crappy politics, why pick a fight with a large number of people with no payback? The cash savings are negligible, it's just another example of poor retail political management
What it also does, of course, is frees up Labour to use upper rate pension relief as a no comeback source of funding.
Hasn't Labour already "spent" that on reducing tuition fees for well-off students?
Indeed. And the Tories have now accepted it is a legitimate move. They would choose to give the money raised to people inheriting large estates. Labour will use it to reduce the costs of going to university.
Tax avoidance promises are easy to make but difficult to implement - the coalition's record is better than Labour's - not that that will count for much as clearly Labour's big idea is "we'll take money off others to spend on you"
I was surprised about the poor BBC reporting on this.
The radio just uncritically repeated Ed Balls's policy, including an excerpt from his speech saying the Tories had (a) spent all week defending non doms [untrue - they shut it down in a day, I think] and done nothing about tax avoidance because they were funded by non doms and tax avoiders [the Coalition has - I believe - been one of the most effective at clamping down on aggressive tax avoidance. I'm sure that they could do more, but to say they have done nothing is a claim that should absolutely be challenged by any self-respecting journalist]
When are the Tories going to come out with policies that appeal to the Midlands marginals? Train fares and IHT are very "South East" centric - are they aiming for bigger majorities there, while leaving the populist field free to Labour?
IHT is a very unpopular tax, surprisingly, even among those who are in no danger of paying it. Usually, voters like the idea of other people paying more tax, but not in this case.
The problem for the Conservatives is that they've been in power for the past 5 years. They spoke of making IHT 'a tax for millionaires only' before the 2010 election. Why believe them twice?
I'm not sure your interpretation of Andulacia is correct. Andulacia in the far south of Spain is one of the poorest and most negatively affected by the Eurozone crisis. It has been a PSOE stronghold for a very, very long time, with them regularly polling more than 50% of the vote.
The 2012 local elections there saw the PP creep above the PSOE for the first time. Their drop in support in 2015 was - to a large extent - just a return to normality. Also, I didn't see any polls for the Andulacia local elections, so I'm not sure where your contention that the PP did much worse than forecast came from.
Really, the big surprise in Andulacia was that Podemos, which should have done really well in a region with unemployment of 42%, got just 15% of the vote.
It was PP's worst result there since 1990. They lost half a million votes. In one go.
It was a poor result but the PSOE vote was also down and this is their heartland. The bulk of the PP vote went to Ciudanos - the new centre-right party and the one with the big MO at the moment. I'm not sure that either PP or PSOE will do well in the GE because both are heavily implicated in corruption scandals. Ironically, the Spanish economy is among Europe's best performers in part because of PP policies.
When are the Tories going to come out with policies that appeal to the Midlands marginals? Train fares and IHT are very "South East" centric - are they aiming for bigger majorities there, while leaving the populist field free to Labour?
A smallish swing to the Tories in and around London, offset by larger swings against them in the rest of England, is a highly plausible scenario.
Noticed that the Tories have become a lot more visible in W&L, btw, this weekend. many more posters up now. It's as if they realise they actually have to put some work in to the seat.
OR....It's as if they realise that a long, long campaign was going to bore people rigid - so they would only kick off their main effort once the manifesto comes out this week...
From last night, this really shows why the Tories are so hated and called the nasty party, people with many houses , unlimited spare rooms, lackeys , money etc and yet they still want to shove the unfortunate poor into one room. Shameful. Charles said:
» show previous quotes I pay plenty in taxes, and I'm fine with that.
I just want it to be spent more productively than giving an individual a spare room unless they need it. There is too much need to waste resources like that.
care to comment on Overseas Aid ?
I have never voted Tory in my life, but I still don't see what's wrong with not paying for someone to have spare room if it is indeed a spare room, that is it is a room they do not need. Millions upon millions of Tory voters will not be the ones with unlimited money and rooms (they do get votes in poor areas too remember, just not enough to win in them), but paying for unnecessary things hurts those people too.
If the rooms are not in fact spare, then sure someone should be exempted or the policy clarified to make sure such people are not swept up in it, but the principle seems fair. Many things are ideal but not fair to provide - and yes, the rich absolutely should pay more to make things much fairer.
Overseas aid? I'm fine with it in principle, it can do a lot of good, although ti should be much tighter controlled.
Living with a mortgage my house has a spare room which we deliberately decided for when we moved in. Guess what though, we pay extra each month as a result of that.
I pay for my own home and through taxes for other people's homes too. If people genuinely need that fair enough, but if they don't why should they get that? It's unfair that I pay for my own home and for spare rooms other people don't need. It's also unfair that people who do need bigger homes can't get them if those who don't need them won't move.
Of course, if you want to buy a council house with a spare room the government will subsidise you up to £I00,000 to do so. Why should I pay for that?
I agree with those that say policy announcements do not sway people. I think that's wishful thinking from those answering the poll. We see that all the time in that the most important thing for most people about a policy is who is proposing it, and it has to be pretty amazing to break through to the other side, and so even if it is objectively what they want you might get something like 'Oh, it's not a bad idea, but you cannot trust x to do it, and it isn't in the right way'.
I think the good lord has it right with this bit:
As my focus groups with undecided voters have shown, little of substance is getting through to most people but what they do hear reinforces what they already think about the parties – good and bad
That is, perceptions of what the parties are like are going to colour how a policy from them will be interpreted, limiting the opportunity for a new policy to change someone's actual view of that party.
Totally agree - it is all about perception. Not only does that reinforce existing opinion - it also galvanises people to turn out and vote, or makes them think, nah - I won't bother. Hence my point about the Tory policies and Ed is going to be a traitor claims. For anti-Tories both strongly reinforce the idea that the Tories are the nasty party only concerned with looking after the best off. Combined with EdM not yet self-immolating and the incentive for non-Tories to get out and vote has been increased over the last two weeks.
But despite last week's 'game changing polls' according to the Guardian - the polls have since swung back somewhat.
1) It worked so well before because it was a total surprise that nobody saw coming and not to the size proposed. The mood music had been set in the media over the course of a year talking about this subject repeatedly and the Labour government had ignored it point blank.
There is no huge surprise this time. Tories promised it last time and it hasn't happened because of coalition.
2) Also, the mood music was Labour were taxing too much and the middle classes across the country were getting hit with all sorts of stealth taxes.
Now the mood music is f##k the rich, f##k the bankers. Hence, why Labour's very poorly thought out policies are getting good approval ratings. It doesn't matter that their non-dom policy is a shambles, raising income tax to 50p won't gain any more money, it is just yeah f##k, f##k the lot of them, rich w##kers.
I am sure this policy will play well in the SE, but that isn't where and from whom the Tories need the votes.
When are the Tories going to come out with policies that appeal to the Midlands marginals? Train fares and IHT are very "South East" centric - are they aiming for bigger majorities there, while leaving the populist field free to Labour?
IHT is a very unpopular tax, surprisingly, even among those who are in no danger of paying it. Usually, voters like the idea of other people paying more tax, but not in this case.
The problem for the Conservatives is that they've been in power for the past 5 years. They spoke of making IHT 'a tax for millionaires only' before the 2010 election. Why believe them twice?
I'm not sure your interpretation of Andulacia is correct. Andulacia in the far south of Spain is one of the poorest and most negatively affected by the Eurozone crisis. It has been a PSOE stronghold for a very, very long time, with them regularly polling more than 50% of the vote.
The 2012 local elections there saw the PP creep above the PSOE for the first time. Their drop in support in 2015 was - to a large extent - just a return to normality. Also, I didn't see any polls for the Andulacia local elections, so I'm not sure where your contention that the PP did much worse than forecast came from.
Really, the big surprise in Andulacia was that Podemos, which should have done really well in a region with unemployment of 42%, got just 15% of the vote.
It was PP's worst result there since 1990. They lost half a million votes. In one go.
It was a poor result but the PSOE vote was also down and this is their heartland. The bulk of the PP vote went to Ciudanos - the new centre-right party and the one with the big MO at the moment. I'm not sure that either PP or PSOE will do well in the GE because both are heavily implicated in corruption scandals. Ironically, the Spanish economy is among Europe's best performers in part because of PP policies.
PSOE did not lose a single seat. But you are right, the corruption scandal is a shocker. However, Andalucía seems to indicate the Socialists may be less punished for it than PP; maybe because they are not in government.
From last night, this really shows why the Tories are so hated and called the nasty party, people with many houses , unlimited spare rooms, lackeys , money etc and yet they still want to shove the unfortunate poor into one room. Shameful. Charles said:
» show previous quotes I pay ple is too much need to waste resources like that.
care to comment on Overseas Aid ?
I have never h it in principle, it can do a lot of good, although ti should be much tighter controlled.
There are many circumstances of a "spare room", ie you might have children and hope that your grandchildren can visit you now and again. You miss the point in that the people demonising it have spare houses not just spare rooms, and where are the thousands of spare "smaller" houses to move them too. It is a horrific policy thought up by rich gits who have spare houses, is shows the Tories for what they are , uncaring nasty barstewards, happy to rob any poor person to keep themselves rolling in it.
As I recall polling on the issue is divisive, but with significant numbers supporting it nevertheless - so my problem with your interpretation is it suggests either we have a lot more rich gits with spare houses happy to rob the poor than seems likely, or the millions of normal people who support it are to be told they are heartless idiots.
Your point as put above is essentially more to do with the people proposing it than the policy itself (while still thinking the policy is dreadful), and while I can see that top Tories will have spare houses, that doesn't make the public paying for spare rooms more palatable (the lack of smaller properties to move people to is a problem with it if that's the case, and I can well believe it is given our housing situations). It would be nice to pay for a room so that someone can visit every now and then, but should the public pay for that, and does the fact that David Cameron is rich actually impact on whether they public should pay for that privilege (and it is a privilege - though when I had to sleep on the settee while visiting my father who had to move to a smaller place, it's easy to see that would be prohibitive for some, not very nice at all).
But it's like paying for people to live in areas which are now really expensive. It's crappy to say someone has to move because the public should not pay for such an expensive property, and the people proposing the policy in government definitely could afford such an area, but that doesn't negate the principle (that policy seems marginally less controversial than the bedroom tax though).
I have to be off briefly, so please do not be offended if I do not respond to what I am sure will be a passionate retort.
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 1m1 minute ago Osborne comes out as a Paulina? 'Harriet and I went to the same school, so the posh boy attack from her is quite interesting'
I agree with those that say policy announcements do not sway people. I think that's wishful thinking from those answering the poll. We see that all the time in that the most important thing for most people about a policy is who is proposing it, and it has to be pretty amazing to break through to the other side, and so even if it is objectively what they want you might get something like 'Oh, it's not a bad idea, but you cannot trust x to do it, and it isn't in the right way'.
I think the good lord has it right with this bit:
As my focus groups with undecided voters have shown, little of substance is getting through to most people but what they do hear reinforces what they already think about the parties – good and bad
That is, perceptions of what the parties are like are going to colour how a policy from them will be interpreted, limiting the opportunity for a new policy to change someone's actual view of that party.
Totally agree - it is all about perception. Not only does that reinforce existing opinion - it also galvanises people to turn out and vote, or makes them think, nah - I won't bother. Hence my point about the Tory policies and Ed is going to be a traitor claims. For anti-Tories both strongly reinforce the idea that the Tories are the nasty party only concerned with looking after the best off. Combined with EdM not yet self-immolating and the incentive for non-Tories to get out and vote has been increased over the last two weeks.
But despite last week's 'game changing polls' according to the Guardian - the polls have since swung back somewhat.
I agree and continue to believe the Tories will win the most seats and possibly a de facto majority. But the more people turn out to vote Labour the harder that becomes. And the Tory announcements and claims are making it more likely anti-Tories in E&W will coalesce around Labour (and the LDs where they can win). In a close election, that could be crucial.
From last night, this really shows why the Tories are so hated and called the nasty party, people with many houses , unlimited spare rooms, lackeys , money etc and yet they still want to shove the unfortunate poor into one room. Shameful. Charles said:
» show previous quotes I pay plenty in taxes, and I'm fine with that.
I just want it to be spent more productively than giving an individual a spare room unless they need it. There is too much need to waste resources like that.
care to comment on Overseas Aid ?
I have never voted Tory in my life, but I still don't see what's wrong with not paying for someone to have spare room if it is indeed a spare room, that is it is a room they do not need. Millions upon millions of Tory voters will not be the ones with unlimited money and rooms (they do get votes in poor areas too remember, just not enough to win in them), but paying for unnecessary things hurts those people too.
If the rooms are not in fact spare, then sure someone should be exempted or the policy clarified to make sure such people are not swept up in it, but the principle seems fair. Many things are ideal but not fair to provide - and yes, the rich absolutely should pay more to make things much fairer.
Overseas aid? I'm fine with it in principle, it can do a lot of good, although ti should be much tighter controlled.
Living with a mortgage my house has a spare room which we deliberately decided for when we moved in. Guess what though, we pay extra each month as a result of that.
I pay for my own home and through taxes for other people's homes too. If people genuinely need that fair enough, but if they don't why should they get that? It's unfair that I pay for my own home and for spare rooms other people don't need. It's also unfair that people who do need bigger homes can't get them if those who don't need them won't move.
Of course, if you want to buy a council house with a spare room the government will subsidise you up to £I00,000 to do so. Why should I pay for that?
You shouldn't. I'll happily grant no government is entirely consistent about which people they will help and in what way.
I agree with those that say policy announcements do not sway people. I think that's wishful thinking from those answering the poll. We see that all the time in that the most important thing for most people about a policy is who is proposing it, and it has to be pretty amazing to break through to the other side, and so even if it is objectively what they want you might get something like 'Oh, it's not a bad idea, but you cannot trust x to do it, and it isn't in the right way'.
I think the good lord has it right with this bit:
As my focus groups with undecided voters have shown, little of substance is getting through to most people but what they do hear reinforces what they already think about the parties – good and bad
That is, perceptions of what the parties are like are going to colour how a policy from them will be interpreted, limiting the opportunity for a new policy to change someone's actual view of that party.
Totally agree - it is all about perception. Not only does that reinforce existing opinion - it also galvanises people to turn out and vote, or makes them think, nah - I won't bother. Hence my point about the Tory policies and Ed is going to be a traitor claims. For anti-Tories both strongly reinforce the idea that the Tories are the nasty party only concerned with looking after the best off. Combined with EdM not yet self-immolating and the incentive for non-Tories to get out and vote has been increased over the last two weeks.
But despite last week's 'game changing polls' according to the Guardian - the polls have since swung back somewhat.
Or they never swung in the first place - but were a predictable consequence of the Easter break and a chunk of the better off taking a break from their homes.
Certainly not detecting any door-step change in people's attitude towards Ed Miliband since he was elevated to sainthood by The Guardian this past week...
From last night, this really shows why the Tories are so hated and called the nasty party, people with many houses , unlimited spare rooms, lackeys , money etc and yet they still want to shove the unfortunate poor into one room. Shameful. Charles said:
» show previous quotes I pay plenty in taxes, and I'm fine with that.
I just want it to be spent more productively than giving an individual a spare room unless they need it. There is too much need to waste resources like that.
care to comment on Overseas Aid ?
I have never voted Tory in my life, but I still don't see what's wrong with not paying for someone to have spare room if it is indeed a spare room, that is it is a room they do not need. Millions upon millions of Tory voters will not be the ones with unlimited money and rooms (they do get votes in poor areas too remember, just not enough to win in them), but paying for unnecessary things hurts those people too.
If the rooms are not in fact spare, then sure someone should be exempted or the policy clarified to make sure such people are not swept up in it, but the principle seems fair. Many things are ideal but not fair to provide - and yes, the rich absolutely should pay more to make things much fairer.
Overseas aid? I'm fine with it in principle, it can do a lot of good, although ti should be much tighter controlled.
There are many circumstances of a "spare room", ie you might have children and hope that your grandchildren can visit you now and again. You miss the point in that the people demonising it have spare houses not just spare rooms, and where are the thousands of spare "smaller" houses to move them too. It is a horrific policy thought up by rich gits who have spare houses, is shows the Tories for what they are , uncaring nasty barstewards, happy to rob any poor person to keep themselves rolling in it.
I don't have a spare house. When I was young I did sometimes sleep over at my grandparents house, a one bedroom bungalow. We slept in sleeping bags on the floor in the dining room. That was fun, camping at your grandparents was great fun as a kid. Not sure why my grandparents should have moved into a bigger home as a result using your logic.
Nobody is saying they should move to bigger houses, I am saying they should not be chucked out just because for some reason they now have a spare room. We are talking about crap houses with very small rooms in most cases and there are no suitable houses to move them to , it is merely a scheme to demonise and hassle poor people. Thought up by well off people who cannot control their greed, you are just aspiring to climb the greasy pole and would like some poor sods shoulders to help you up a step.
By the way, Anna Soubry and I (and LibDem and Green candidates) are debating on the East Midlands section of the Sunday Politics show at 11.30. The other candidates (UKIP and the Justice for Men and Boys Party) are unable to attend and will be getting recorded interviews instead. It's the first of three hustings in the next few days.
From last night, this really shows why the Tories are so hated and called the nasty party, people with many houses , unlimited spare rooms, lackeys , money etc and yet they still want to shove the unfortunate poor into one room. Shameful. Charles said:
» show previous quotes I pay plenty in taxes, and I'm fine with that.
I just want it to be spent more productively than giving an individual a spare room unless they need it. There is too much need to waste resources like that.
care to comment on Overseas Aid ?
I have never voted Tory in my life, but I still don't see what's wrong with not paying for someone to have spare room if it is indeed a spare room, that is it is a room they do not need. Millions upon millions of Tory voters will not be the ones with unlimited money and rooms (they do get votes in poor areas too remember, just not enough to win in them), but paying for unnecessary things hurts those people too.
If the rooms are not in fact spare, then sure someone should be exempted or the policy clarified to make sure such people are not swept up in it, but the principle seems fair. Many things are ideal but not fair to provide - and yes, the rich absolutely should pay more to make things much fairer.
Overseas aid? I'm fine with it in principle, it can do a lot of good, although ti should be much tighter controlled.
There are many circumstances of a "spare room", ie you might have children and hope that your grandchildren can visit you now and again. You miss the point in that the people demonising it have spare houses not just spare rooms, and where are the thousands of spare "smaller" houses to move them too. It is a horrific policy thought up by rich gits who have spare houses, is shows the Tories for what they are , uncaring nasty barstewards, happy to rob any poor person to keep themselves rolling in it.
It was poorly drafted policy, have a son in the military based overseas and want to keep a room for him to return to? Too bad, that'll cost you.
More than that, it's just crappy politics, why pick a fight with a large number of people with no payback? The cash savings are negligible, it's just another example of poor retail political management
Poor politics and poorly drafted, certainly. If it were better implemented it might have been better politics, but there were too many example where 'spare room' was interpreted more harshly than most people would think reasonable. Principle was solid.
Oh well, Labour will get rid of it soon, so it's not worth arguing too much about.
The difference of attitude by Marr between Harriot's vacuous nonsense and his aggression against Osborne is just embarrassing.
Classic from Osborne against Hattie "Harriet and I went to the same school, so all this posh boy stuff from her doesn't mean anything".
Did Harman really go on the posho attack? The vile women's family background makes Osborne own comfortable upbringing seem like he is chav from a council estate.
The fundamental principle is that it will have been built up out of income that has already been taxed, so why should the government get a second bite at the cherry.
The fundamental principle is that it will have been built up out of income that has already been taxed, so why should the government get a second bite at the cherry.
Because it can. The same logic applies to VAT.
You can take the Tea Party view that taxation is theft, but please don't try to imply that such a view is logical rather than emotional.
''Don't turn nasty and personal. I never said anything nasty or personal against anyone else. Shows you up more than me.''
Andrew Gilligan has a good article on the SNP's bullying tactics in the telegraph today.
LOL, if you think that is anything other than fantasy you are awarded the Turnip of the day award. You have to be pretty damn stupid to believe any of that guff.
"There are many circumstances of a "spare room", ie you might have children and hope that your grandchildren can visit you now and again. You miss the point in that the people demonising it have spare houses not just spare rooms, and where are the thousands of spare "smaller" houses to move them too. It is a horrific policy thought up by rich gits who have spare houses, is shows the Tories for what they are , uncaring nasty barstewards, happy to rob any poor person to keep "
Indeed and people who have lived in a house all their lives are being forced to move because they now find themselves with a spare room. Could be death marriage or anything. Contrast this with the Tories new plan to remove inheritance tax from family homes so that their children-probably into their 60's or 70's-can have a spare house. With no tax to pay
"Ending higher rate relief for everybody is quite a large tax rise. It would make pensions a poor savings scheme for all above the 40% rate. Punishment of the thrifty again."
It's always been unfair to give more relief to higher earners than to lower ones but more importantly now that pension limitations don't exist I wonder whether any tax relief is appropriate?
As it stands people can save money tax free at their marginal rate with the only proviso that they cant draw it till they're 50.
The principle of tax relief on pensions is that a pension is deferred income. Tax free into the wrapper and taxed coming out. This change would tax it both going in and coming out (unless all pension income was taxed at 20%). It is not morally wrong to give tax relief at the marginal rate. It encourages people to fund their own retirement rather than rely on the state to fund it.
ISAs are looking better, money is post tax on the way in, but tax free on the way out.
The charges on ISAs are far higher than on most pensions (despite being far less complex products). For that reason, most people would be best advised to save in a pension first unless they really need the instant access that ISAs offer.
Not that I've seen - especially if you use trackers (which is what most people should do).
FWIW, I pay 0.25% on my ISA and 0.5% on my other investments.
From last night, this really shows why the Tories are so hated and called the nasty party, people with many houses , unlimited spare rooms, lackeys , money etc and yet they still want to shove the unfortunate poor into one room. Shameful. Charles said:
» show previous quotes I pay plenty in taxes, and I'm fine with that.
I just want it to be spent more productively than giving an individual a spare room unless they need it. There is too much need to waste resources like that.
care to comment on Overseas Aid ?
I have never voted Tory in my life, but I still don't see what's wrong with not paying for someone to have spare room if it is indeed a spare room, that is it is a room they do not need. Millions upon millions of Tory voters will not be the ones with unlimited money and rooms (they do get votes in poor areas too remember, just not enough to win in them), but paying for unnecessary things hurts those people too.
If the rooms are not in fact spare, then sure someone should be exempted or the policy clarified to make sure such people are not swept up in it, but the principle seems fair. Many things are ideal but not fair to provide - and yes, the rich absolutely should pay more to make things much fairer.
Overseas aid? I'm fine with it in principle, it can do a lot of good, although ti should be much tighter controlled.
Living with a mortgage my house has a spare room which we deliberately decided for when we moved in. Guess what though, we pay extra each month as a result of that.
I pay for my own home and through taxes for other people's homes too. If people genuinely need that fair enough, but if they don't why should they get that? It's unfair that I pay for my own home and for spare rooms other people don't need. It's also unfair that people who do need bigger homes can't get them if those who don't need them won't move.
Of course, if you want to buy a council house with a spare room the government will subsidise you up to £I00,000 to do so. Why should I pay for that?
You shouldn't. I'll happily grant no government is entirely consistent about which people they will help and in what way.
The difference of attitude by Marr between Harriot's vacuous nonsense and his aggression against Osborne is just embarrassing.
He had a good question 'Will Labour's tax avoidance plan close the loophole Ed used' - but didn't follow through anything like as effectively as he did with Osborne, letting Hattie get away with 'Ed didn't avoid any tax' and giving up after two goes.
From last night, this really shows why the Tories are so hated and called the nasty party, people with many houses , unlimited spare rooms, lackeys , money etc and yet they still want to shove the unfortunate poor into one room. Shameful. Charles said:
» show previous quotes I pay plenty in taxes, and I'm fine with that.
I just want it to be spent more productively than giving an individual a spare room unless they need it. There is too much need to waste resources like that.
care to comment on Overseas Aid ?
I have never voted Tory in my life, but I still don't see what's wrong with not paying for someone to have spare room if it is indeed a spare room, that is it is a room they do not need. Millions upon millions of Tory voters will not be the ones with unlimited money and rooms (they do get votes in poor areas too remember, just not enough to win in them), but paying for unnecessary things hurts those people too.
If the rooms are not in fact spare, then sure someone should be exempted or the policy clarified to make sure such people are not swept up in it, but the principle seems fair. Many things are ideal but not fair to provide - and yes, the rich absolutely should pay more to make things much fairer.
Overseas aid? I'm fine with it in principle, it can do a lot of good, although ti should be much tighter controlled.
There are many circumstances of a "spare room", ie you might have children and hope that your grandchildren can visit you now and again. You miss the point in that the people demonising it have spare houses not just spare rooms, and where are the thousands of spare "smaller" houses to move them too. It is a horrific policy thought up by rich gits who have spare houses, is shows the Tories for what they are , uncaring nasty barstewards, happy to rob any poor person to keep themselves rolling in it.
It was poorly drafted policy, have a son in the military based overseas and want to keep a room for him to return to? Too bad, that'll cost you.
More than that, it's just crappy politics, why pick a fight with a large number of people with no payback? The cash savings are negligible, it's just another example of poor retail political management
Exactly , especially as you know there are no houses to move them to even if it was fair. Just nasty and all the Tories seem capable of.
The fundamental principle is that it will have been built up out of income that has already been taxed, so why should the government get a second bite at the cherry.
As I said in my post the vast majority of the increase in “estates” is due to the increase in property values.
The one point Marr did make is that most of the promises make about public spending are just nonsense and the Tories have rather demonstrated that with their commitment to £8bn more for the NHS over the next Parliament.
The reality is that this is a tiny amount of money. If we assume that the next Parliament is 5 years what they are saying that a budget of approximately £120bn will increase to £128bn over 5 years in real terms. That is an increase of just over 6% spread over 5 years, just over 1% a year in real terms. As Osborne pointed out they have pretty much managed that in this Parliament. He could have added that they managed that even when the economy was not growing.
What I find spurious is that politicians of all stripes like to claim that their policies are fully costed. This is always in the context of a major deficit and a range of assumptions about future growth and tax revenues which are so massively more volatile and unpredictable than the sums they are talking about as to bring our debate down to the positioning of the deckchairs on the titanic. It is just absurd and false.
Is it any wonder that the public just don't listen to politicians and eventually make a choice based on their assessment of who they distrust least.
On policies, YG has huge majorities for all Labour's controversial tax proposals .... Have I missed something?
Yes: the basic fact that people will always support increasing taxes paid by other people
Where the Tories are doing a terrible job is making it clear that it wont just be taxes paid by filthy rich bankers in £5 million homes that will get hit if Labour get in. Labour have done their classic ruling stuff out, but we all know how they did it last time. The 40p tax rate used to only be for the very rich, now if you are middle class professional you are more than likely paying it these days, and guess where it will be coming from again.
When are the Tories going to come out with policies that appeal to the Midlands marginals? Train fares and IHT are very "South East" centric - are they aiming for bigger majorities there, while leaving the populist field free to Labour?
IHT is a very unpopular tax, surprisingly, even among those who are in no danger of paying it. Usually, voters like the idea of other people paying more tax, but not in this case.
IHT over the coming decade would grow rapidly unless something was changed. Anyone in a house worth £300k who is unmarried comes into the bracket of an IHT problem within a year or two. An unmarried couple that own it 50/50 may avoid it on first death but the second death is likely to hit them. It is a problem much bigger than just little old London. 70+ miles from London and a semi-detached 3 bedroom house is £300k. The solution is to get married, as I often advise! I am well into double fingers for the number of same sex couples encouraged in that direction.
"There are many circumstances of a "spare room", ie you might have children and hope that your grandchildren can visit you now and again. You miss the point in that the people demonising it have spare houses not just spare rooms, and where are the thousands of spare "smaller" houses to move them too. It is a horrific policy thought up by rich gits who have spare houses, is shows the Tories for what they are , uncaring nasty barstewards, happy to rob any poor person to keep "
Indeed and people who have lived in a house all their lives are being forced to move because they now find themselves with a spare room. Could be death marriage or anything. Contrast this with the Tories new plan to remove inheritance tax from family homes so that their children-probably into their 60's or 70's-can have a spare house. With no tax to pay
They're not forced to move though are they? The rent goes up a bit that's all
The difference of attitude by Marr between Harriot's vacuous nonsense and his aggression against Osborne is just embarrassing.
Classic from Osborne against Hattie "Harriet and I went to the same school, so all this posh boy stuff from her doesn't mean anything".
Did Harman really go on the posho attack? The vile women's family background makes Osborne own comfortable upbringing seem like he is chav from a council estate.
She'd accused the Tories of bad practice by highlighting Ed's backstabbing. Marr compared it to Labour's Bullingdon Boys attacks which of course she thought was different and fair!
When are the Tories going to come out with policies that appeal to the Midlands marginals? Train fares and IHT are very "South East" centric - are they aiming for bigger majorities there, while leaving the populist field free to Labour?
IHT is a very unpopular tax, surprisingly, even among those who are in no danger of paying it. Usually, voters like the idea of other people paying more tax, but not in this case.
The problem for the Conservatives is that they've been in power for the past 5 years. They spoke of making IHT 'a tax for millionaires only' before the 2010 election. Why believe them twice?
Umm. Because it's a Coalition not a Tory government?
From last night, this really shows why the Tories are so hated and called the nasty party, people with many houses , unlimited spare rooms, lackeys , money etc and yet they still want to shove the unfortunate poor into one room. Shameful. Charles said:
» show previous quotes I pay plenty in taxes, and I'm fine with that.
I just want it to be spent more productively than giving an individual a spare room unless they need it. There is too much need to waste resources like that.
care to comment on Overseas Aid ?
I have never voted Tory in my life, but I still don't see what's wrong with not paying for someone to have spare room if it is indeed a spare room, that is it is a room they do not need. Millions upon millions of Tory voters will not be the ones with unlimited money and rooms (they do get votes in poor areas too remember, just not enough to win in them), but paying for unnecessary things hurts those people too.
If the rooms are not in fact spare, then sure someone should be exempted or the policy clarified to make sure such people are not swept up in it, but the principle seems fair. Many things are ideal but not fair to provide - and yes, the rich absolutely should pay more to make things much fairer.
Overseas aid? I'm fine with it in principle, it can do a lot of good, although ti should be much tighter controlled.
Living with a mortgage my house has a spare room which we deliberately decided for when we moved in. Guess what though, we pay extra each month as a result of that.
I pay for my own home and through taxes for other people's homes too. If
Another greedy Tory, happy to have a poor person out on the street. Greedy and grasping , I have a nice house but should have more , get it off those poor people, why have they got a spare cupboard on a sink estate.
Don't turn nasty and personal. I never said anything nasty or personal against anyone else. Shows you up more than me.
Where does the nasty come in , I am merely pointing out that you think it is fine to have poor people put out of their houses just because at the minute they have a spare room. You said you supported it as you were paying for your house so it is hard to then get on your high horse and get upset when I say you are heartless and self interested and care not a jot for anyone but yourself. Think yourself lucky you can afford to have the choice to take a bigger mortgage to have a spare room, most of these people have no choices in life. Count your blessings rather than harbour ill feelings.
"The fundamental principle is that it will have been built up out of income that has already been taxed, so why should the government get a second bite at the cherry. "
But the effect is to keep privilege going through the generations leading to the horrible class sysem which had bedevilled this country for centuries.
Wouldn't you like people to start with a slightly more even playing field?
The difference of attitude by Marr between Harriot's vacuous nonsense and his aggression against Osborne is just embarrassing.
Classic from Osborne against Hattie "Harriet and I went to the same school, so all this posh boy stuff from her doesn't mean anything".
Did Harman really go on the posho attack? The vile women's family background makes Osborne own comfortable upbringing seem like he is chav from a council estate.
She'd accused the Tories of bad practice by highlighting Ed's backstabbing. Marr compared it to Labour's Bullingdon Boys attacks which of course she thought was different and fair!
Arhhh Marr can't wait to go big on the Bullingdon Boys stuff. He was a total disgrace during the last GE, when he had that picture flashed up just as he started to ask Cameron a question in the "big interview". It was a pretty low and disgusting "trick" to try and put Cameron off.
And people will say but but he asked an awkward question of Brown. No he didn't, he asked a carefully worded question, that missed the actual accusation and enabled Brown to give an honest denial.
My Great Great Great Grandfather returned to Scotland from the Colonies to take part in the debates about the disruption. He had been a minister and teacher in Jamaica to the newly liberated slaves.
But while the Free Presbyterians were about half the Congregation, the assets remained with the Orthodox Presbyterians, so he became an itinerent preacher and left Scotland for Australia instead.
I mustn't go even more off topic (or off track) but is he in the big Hill painting of the Disruption by any chance? Very impressive piece of work when seen in actual life, close up.
Is there a key to the painting? I would be interested to have a look for my ancestor. The disruption was a large part of the reason my ancesyltors became part of the Scottish Diaspora.
FPT
There is plenty on the painting on the net e.g. www.gla.ac.uk/services/specialcollections/collectionsa-z/hilladamson/disruptionpicture/ www.edinphoto.org.uk/pp_d/pp_hill_paintings_in_oil_disruption.htm www.edinphoto.org.uk/pp_d/pp_hill_paintings_in_oil_disruptionin_the_%20presbytery_hall.htm#The Disruption Painting
(and a book called 'Mr Hill's Big Picture by J. Fowler) and a key exists - I have a photocopy somewhere - but for the life of me I cannot find a copy of the key on the net. You could always beg one off the Free Church College (where the painting is, on the Mound) as they hand out copies to visitors, or just make an appointment to go and see it when next there. It would also be worth running a check to see if Hill and Adamson photographed your ancestor, if you haven't.
Back to politics - I'm not sure about the SNP connection you raise (partly because of the strength of Episcopalianism in the NE). I'd think more I terms of , Liberal politics, though differently in the Highlands & Islands vs the Lowlands. The laird/people challenge seems to have transmuted to Liberalism and land agitation in the H&I, and the Gladstonian crofting acts (though a historian told me once that in his fview the FC clergy had tended to revert to class allegiances later in the 19th century); hence Charles Kennedy and - perhaps - A. Carmichael (I am not so familiar with Orkney and Shetland kirk history). In the Lowlands the Free Kirk was more middle class and upper working class - millowners rather than peasants including some very active Liberals - as the rather unkind portrayal in Aytoun's short story "The Glenmutchkin Railway" exemplifies (IIRC).
"However we as a society think that some sort of "redistribution" should occur, so we do have IHT. Osborne's plan to effectively exempt a family home as an exception to this is one many people would support surely, although perhaps not metropolitan champagne socialists... "
This hasn't been thought through. Do we really want people to hang on to their over large houses as their families get smaller?
Those even richer may decide to buy as they approach their dotage as a smart way to avoid tax.Houses should not be used as a vote buyer. There are just too many homeless for that.
It would be more honest and better to move to a wealth tax system than to increase inheritance tax. That would be my preference, and I hope that a mansion tax might be the thin end of the wedge in that regard.
"There are many circumstances of a "spare room", ie you might have children and hope that your grandchildren can visit you now and again. You miss the point in that the people demonising it have spare houses not just spare rooms, and where are the thousands of spare "smaller" houses to move them too. It is a horrific policy thought up by rich gits who have spare houses, is shows the Tories for what they are , uncaring nasty barstewards, happy to rob any poor person to keep "
Indeed and people who have lived in a house all their lives are being forced to move because they now find themselves with a spare room. Could be death marriage or anything. Contrast this with the Tories new plan to remove inheritance tax from family homes so that their children-probably into their 60's or 70's-can have a spare house. With no tax to pay
They're not forced to move though are they? The rent goes up a bit that's all
Yes, its move or don't eat/heat your house , very nice alternative. Tax the poorest whilst giving handouts to the richest , it is the Tory way.
From last night, this really shows why the Tories are so hated and called the nasty party, people with many houses , unlimited spare rooms, lackeys , money etc and yet they still want to shove the unfortunate poor into one room. Shameful. Charles said:
» show previous quotes I pay plenty in taxes, and I'm fine with that.
I just want it to be spent more productively than giving an individual a spare room unless they need it. There is too much need to waste resources like that.
care to comment on Overseas Aid ?
I have never voted Tory in my life, but I still don't see what's wrong with not paying for someone to have spare room if it is indeed a spare room, that is it is a room they do not need. Millions upon millions of Tory voters will not be the ones with unlimited money and rooms (they do get votes in poor areas too remember, just not enough to win in them), but paying for unnecessary things hurts those people too.
If the rooms are not in fact spare, then sure someone should be exempted or the policy clarified to make sure such people are not swept up in it, but the principle seems fair. Many things are ideal but not fair to provide - and yes, the rich absolutely should pay more to make things much fairer.
Overseas aid? I'm fine with it in principle, it can do a lot of good, although ti should be much tighter controlled.
Living with a mortgage my house has a spare room which we deliberately decided for when we moved in. Guess what though, we pay extra each month as a result of that.
I pay for my own home and through taxes for other people's homes too. If people genuinely need that fair enough, but if they don't why should they get that? It's unfair that I pay for my own home and for spare rooms other people don't need. It's also unfair that people who do need bigger homes can't get them if those who don't need them won't move.
Of course, if you want to buy a council house with a spare room the government will subsidise you up to £I00,000 to do so. Why should I pay for that?
Some maths for you. A London house commanding the max £100k discount would typically be worth £600k. So the Govt/Council receives a net £500k. The typical value of the subsidy is in the range of £20k pa. So after 5 years the "subsidy" has been re-paid.... Now the Council can use the £500k to fund the building of a new house which typically would cost less than £300k plus land cost. For every year after the 5 years, the Govt will be saving £20k + inflation having lost one unit/family needing subsidised housing. What I do not understand is why the Conservatives have been so timid over this. They could easily go to subsidies worth £200k or even £300k.
The vast majority of spare rooms are in the North and Scotland.
If you look at the Midlands and the South, overcrowding is a far greater issue.
Access to housing related welfare is capped for the 80% of households that are private rentals or owner occupied.
Private rentals with spare bedrooms - not allowed Help with your mortgage - capped.
It's a perfect example of a policy that is right in one part of the country, being wrong in another.
Dave I have a great idea, let's penalise those Northerners and Scottish people, we will have a bedroom tax , they have nowhere to move to so it means a big benefits cut , what a wheeze and means we can give our chums a good bung.
The fundamental principle is that it will have been built up out of income that has already been taxed, so why should the government get a second bite at the cherry.
Transactions are taxed. They're being taxed all the time. Talking about "Double Taxation" is vacuous nonsense.
Dave I have a great idea, let's penalise those Northerners and Scottish people, we will have a bedroom tax , they have nowhere to move to so it means a big benefits cut , what a wheeze and means we can give our chums a good bung.
Alex/Nicola - I have a great idea lets leave all those Londoners and Englanders living 5 to a room and allocate welfare to empty space.
From last night, this really shows why the Tories are so hated and called the nasty party, people with many houses , unlimited spare rooms, lackeys , money etc and yet they still want to shove the unfortunate poor into one room. Shameful. Charles said:
» show previous quotes I pay plenty in taxes, and I'm fine with that.
I just want it to be spent more productively than giving an individual a spare room unless they need it. There is too much need to waste resources like that.
care to comment on Overseas Aid ?
I have never voted Tory in my life, but I still don't see what's wrong with not paying for someone to have spare room if it is indeed a spare room, that is it is a room they do not need. Millions upon millions of Tory voters will not be the ones with unlimited money and rooms (they do get votes in poor areas too remember, just not enough to win in them), but paying for unnecessary things hurts those people too.
If the rooms are not in fact spare, then sure someone should be exempted or the policy clarified to make sure such people are not swept up in it, but the principle seems fair. Many things are ideal but not fair to provide - and yes, the rich absolutely should pay more to make things much fairer.
Overseas aid? I'm fine with it in principle, it can do a lot of good, although ti should be much tighter controlled.
Living with a mortgage my house has a spare room which we deliberately decided for when we moved in. Guess what though, we pay extra each month as a result of that.
I pay for my own home and through taxes for other people's homes too. If people genuinely need that fair enough, but if they don't why should they get
Of course, if you want to buy a council house with a spare room the government will subsidise you up to £I00,000 to do so. Why should I pay for that?
Some maths for you. A London house commanding the max £100k discount would typically be worth £600k. So the Govt/Council receives a net £500k. The typical value of the subsidy is in the range of £20k pa. So after 5 years the "subsidy" has been re-paid.... Now the Council can use the £500k to fund the building of a new house which typically would cost less than £300k plus land cost. For every year after the 5 years, the Govt will be saving £20k + inflation having lost one unit/family needing subsidised housing. What I do not understand is why the Conservatives have been so timid over this. They could easily go to subsidies worth £200k or even £300k.
Remind me again how many social houses the Tories have sold and how many new ones they built with the proceeds.
1) It worked so well before because it was a total surprise that nobody saw coming and not to the size proposed. The mood music had been set in the media over the course of a year talking about this subject repeatedly and the Labour government had ignored it point blank.
There is no huge surprise this time. Tories promised it last time and it hasn't happened because of coalition.
2) Also, the mood music was Labour were taxing too much and the middle classes across the country were getting hit with all sorts of stealth taxes.
Now the mood music is f##k the rich, f##k the bankers. Hence, why Labour's very poorly thought out policies are getting good approval ratings. It doesn't matter that their non-dom policy is a shambles, raising income tax to 50p won't gain any more money, it is just yeah f##k, f##k the lot of them, rich w##kers.
I am sure this policy will play well in the SE, but that isn't where and from whom the Tories need the votes.
It also dominated most newspaper frontpages, and several newscycles on the TV. The coverage for the IHT cut from the Tories back in 2007 was very, very good. Probably because an election announcement seemed imminent.
I'm not too worried about the mood music now. It won't have the same impact as in 2007. But you only have to look at some of the comments by the Labour posters downthread who've been lathering themselves up into a frenzy over it. They've fallen into the "tax the poor, benefit the rich" trap, even though it's both fiscally neutral and taxes the rich *even more* to help middle-earners whose homes have increased in value through no fault of their own. Family homes they just want to pass on to their children, and won't understand why Labour thinks this is so unreasonable.
So Labour will probably call it wrong. Just like they did last time.
So, family A that have to sell the family home in order to pay for a Care Home for their elderly relative will not benefit from the Conservatives IHT proposal. However family B who have enough other assets or income that they do not have to sell the family home will benefit. Is this fair or equitable?
Has this proosal been thought through? Why the favourable treatment to homes?
Why not just say income taxed during life should not be taxed a second time on death and raise the IHT threashold as a prelude to the abolition of IHT?
Dave I have a great idea, let's penalise those Northerners and Scottish people, we will have a bedroom tax , they have nowhere to move to so it means a big benefits cut , what a wheeze and means we can give our chums a good bung.
Alex/Nicola - I have a great idea lets leave all those Londoners and Englanders living 5 to a room and allocate welfare to empty space.
So a Little Englander as well, perhaps you failed to notice I was talking about the UK and made no mention of Scotland. The SNP have used money from their budget to nullify the bedroom tax in Scotland , so it is only English people who are being taxed in this fashion nowadays.
"There are many circumstances of a "spare room", ie you might have children and hope that your grandchildren can visit you now and again. You miss the point in that the people demonising it have spare houses not just spare rooms, and where are the thousands of spare "smaller" houses to move them too. It is a horrific policy thought up by rich gits who have spare houses, is shows the Tories for what they are , uncaring nasty barstewards, happy to rob any poor person to keep "
Indeed and people who have lived in a house all their lives are being forced to move because they now find themselves with a spare room. Could be death marriage or anything. Contrast this with the Tories new plan to remove inheritance tax from family homes so that their children-probably into their 60's or 70's-can have a spare house. With no tax to pay
They're not forced to move though are they? The rent goes up a bit that's all
Yes, its move or don't eat/heat your house , very nice alternative. Tax the poorest whilst giving handouts to the richest , it is the Tory way.
So Malcolm thinks wealth should be shared except he wants to hog North Sea oil money for his own benefit at the expense of the poorest. A total fraud.
Peter Kellner reckons Lab will only poll 32% at GE 2015.borderline EICIPM
I reckon at least 34% myself but we will see.
Every BJESUS forecast has predicted EICIPM only 25 days till we know who is right BJO or JackW
Friendly bet (for the site):
£50: You pay lower than 33% and I will pay if above. Usual rules:
* Al-Beeb GB figures using natural rounding to the nearest integer. * All bets and debts settled via PtP.
Are you game...?
Sound OK to me do you want to let me know the logistics of how this works by PM and what usual rules entail 33.01% or above you pay £50 32.99% or less and I pay £50?
The fundamental principle is that it will have been built up out of income that has already been taxed, so why should the government get a second bite at the cherry.
Transactions are taxed. They're being taxed all the time. Talking about "Double Taxation" is vacuous nonsense.
Harsh, but fair. Talk of "double taxation" is relevant when there is a danger of taxing what is effectively the same transaction twice; this is why there is a tax credit on dividends, because they've already paid corporation tax. But no one says VAT should be abolished because we buy vatable goods with income-taxed money.
When are the Tories going to come out with policies that appeal to the Midlands marginals? Train fares and IHT are very "South East" centric - are they aiming for bigger majorities there, while leaving the populist field free to Labour?
IHT is a very unpopular tax, surprisingly, even among those who are in no danger of paying it. Usually, voters like the idea of other people paying more tax, but not in this case.
The problem for the Conservatives is that they've been in power for the past 5 years. They spoke of making IHT 'a tax for millionaires only' before the 2010 election. Why believe them twice?
I'm not sure your interpretation of Andulacia is correct. Andulacia in the far south of Spain is one of the poorest and most negatively affected by the Eurozone crisis. It has been a PSOE stronghold for a very, very long time, with them regularly polling more than 50% of the vote.
The 2012 local elections there saw the PP creep above the PSOE for the first time. Their drop in support in 2015 was - to a large extent - just a return to normality. Also, I didn't see any polls for the Andulacia local elections, so I'm not sure where your contention that the PP did much worse than forecast came from.
Really, the big surprise in Andulacia was that Podemos, which should have done really well in a region with unemployment of 42%, got just 15% of the vote.
It was PP's worst result there since 1990. They lost half a million votes. In one go.
It was a poor result but the PSOE vote was also down and this is their heartland. The bulk of the PP vote went to Ciudanos - the new centre-right party and the one with the big MO at the moment. I'm not sure that either PP or PSOE will do well in the GE because both are heavily implicated in corruption scandals. Ironically, the Spanish economy is among Europe's best performers in part because of PP policies.
PSOE did not lose a single seat. But you are right, the corruption scandal is a shocker. However, Andalucía seems to indicate the Socialists may be less punished for it than PP; maybe because they are not in government.
I never said they did - the electoral system tends to favour the party with the top vote even when it falls as it did in this case in the PSOE heartland after 4 years of austerity. PSOE is increasingly as irrelevant to Spain's future as may be the PP
On policies, YG has huge majorities for all Labour's controversial tax proposals (64-24 for raising top rate tax, 64-23 for the mansion tax [56-29 in London], 50-25 on non-doms)..... Have I missed something?
The truth. That imposing these means a large number of top-rate tax payers may leave the country. To the huge detriment of the NHS.
Try asking the same voters this: "Labour has outlined a series of polices that risk a very significant reduction in the taxes the Govt. collects. This could mean large funding cuts for the NHS. Do you think Labour should implement these policies?"
From last night, this really shows why the Tories are so hated and called the nasty party, people with many houses , unlimited spare rooms, lackeys , money etc and yet they still want to shove the unfortunate poor into one room. Shameful. Charles said:
» show previous quotes I pay plenty in taxes, and I'm fine with that.
I have never voted Tory in my life, but I still don't see what's wrong with not paying for someone to have spare room if it is indeed a spare room, that is it is a room they do not need. Millions upon millions of Tory voters will not be the ones with unlimited money and rooms (they do get votes in poor areas too remember, just not enough to win in them), but paying for unnecessary things hurts those people too.
If the rooms are not in fact spare, then sure someone should be exempted or the policy clarified to make sure such people are not swept up in it, but the principle seems fair. Many things are ideal but not fair to provide - and yes, the rich absolutely should pay more to make things much fairer.
Overseas aid? I'm fine with it in principle, it can do a lot of good, although ti should be much tighter controlled.
Living with a mortgage my house has a spare room which we deliberately decided for when we moved in. Guess what though, we pay extra each month as a result of that.
I pay for my own home and through taxes for other people's homes too. If people genuinely need that fair enough, but if they don't why should they get that? It's unfair that I pay for my own home and for spare rooms other people don't need. It's also unfair that people who do need bigger homes can't get them if those who don't need them won't move.
Of course, if you want to buy a council house with a spare room the government will subsidise you up to £I00,000 to do so. Why should I pay for that?
Some maths for you. A London house commanding the max £100k discount would typically be worth £600k. So the Govt/Council receives a net £500k. The typical value of the subsidy is in the range of £20k pa. So after 5 years the "subsidy" has been re-paid.... Now the Council can use the £500k to fund the building of a new house which typically would cost less than £300k plus land cost. For every year after the 5 years, the Govt will be saving £20k + inflation having lost one unit/family needing subsidised housing. What I do not understand is why the Conservatives have been so timid over this. They could easily go to subsidies worth £200k or even £300k.
I am still subsidising someone who can clearly afford to buy housing within the private sector, but is instead effectively handed money to deplete social housing stock.
Comments
This is all the more deplorable because Cameron’s unthinking policy on Syria can only have fuelled the rise of support for jihadism among British Muslim youth. To call for the overthrow of the secular Syrian government, to demonise it out of all proportion (and remember, this is the same President Assad who was having tea with the Queen in 2006), to predict its imminent fall, as Cameron and Hague were doing in 2012 and 2013 – and then to wail as though it was nothing to do with them when British Muslims set off to help hasten said overthrow – is inconsistent and nonsensical.'
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/apr/07/david-cameron-failure-fuelled-british-jihadism
Cameron just doesn't have that will to win.
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/china-post-race-analysis.html
As opposed to here.
I pay for my own home and through taxes for other people's homes too. If people genuinely need that fair enough, but if they don't why should they get that? It's unfair that I pay for my own home and for spare rooms other people don't need. It's also unfair that people who do need bigger homes can't get them if those who don't need them won't move.
and where are the thousands of spare "smaller" houses to move them too.
It is a horrific policy thought up by rich gits who have spare houses, is shows the Tories for what they are , uncaring nasty barstewards, happy to rob any poor person to keep themselves rolling in it.
Noticed that the Tories have become a lot more visible in W&L, btw, this weekend. many more posters up now. It's as if they realise they actually have to put some work in to the seat.
But I am very sceptical about 0.7% good, 0.69% bad. They should spend the maximum amount of money that (a) they can afford and (b) can be spent productively with a net benefit to the UK
Labour's plan is to increase taxes, borrowing and debt. Same old same old.
More than that, it's just crappy politics, why pick a fight with a large number of people with no payback? The cash savings are negligible, it's just another example of poor retail political management
But I'll soon change that....
The radio just uncritically repeated Ed Balls's policy, including an excerpt from his speech saying the Tories had (a) spent all week defending non doms [untrue - they shut it down in a day, I think] and done nothing about tax avoidance because they were funded by non doms and tax avoiders [the Coalition has - I believe - been one of the most effective at clamping down on aggressive tax avoidance. I'm sure that they could do more, but to say they have done nothing is a claim that should absolutely be challenged by any self-respecting journalist]
Andrew Gilligan has a good article on the SNP's bullying tactics in the telegraph today.
"They've got their finger on the pulse of public opinion."
Indeed they have. It was only watched by 600,000,000 people
Can you leave this until later as I have to go out and want to enjoy the fun.
1) It worked so well before because it was a total surprise that nobody saw coming and not to the size proposed. The mood music had been set in the media over the course of a year talking about this subject repeatedly and the Labour government had ignored it point blank.
There is no huge surprise this time. Tories promised it last time and it hasn't happened because of coalition.
2) Also, the mood music was Labour were taxing too much and the middle classes across the country were getting hit with all sorts of stealth taxes.
Now the mood music is f##k the rich, f##k the bankers. Hence, why Labour's very poorly thought out policies are getting good approval ratings. It doesn't matter that their non-dom policy is a shambles, raising income tax to 50p won't gain any more money, it is just yeah f##k, f##k the lot of them, rich w##kers.
I am sure this policy will play well in the SE, but that isn't where and from whom the Tories need the votes.
Your point as put above is essentially more to do with the people proposing it than the policy itself (while still thinking the policy is dreadful), and while I can see that top Tories will have spare houses, that doesn't make the public paying for spare rooms more palatable (the lack of smaller properties to move people to is a problem with it if that's the case, and I can well believe it is given our housing situations). It would be nice to pay for a room so that someone can visit every now and then, but should the public pay for that, and does the fact that David Cameron is rich actually impact on whether they public should pay for that privilege (and it is a privilege - though when I had to sleep on the settee while visiting my father who had to move to a smaller place, it's easy to see that would be prohibitive for some, not very nice at all).
But it's like paying for people to live in areas which are now really expensive. It's crappy to say someone has to move because the public should not pay for such an expensive property, and the people proposing the policy in government definitely could afford such an area, but that doesn't negate the principle (that policy seems marginally less controversial than the bedroom tax though).
I have to be off briefly, so please do not be offended if I do not respond to what I am sure will be a passionate retort.
Osborne comes out as a Paulina? 'Harriet and I went to the same school, so the posh boy attack from her is quite interesting'
Certainly not detecting any door-step change in people's attitude towards Ed Miliband since he was elevated to sainthood by The Guardian this past week...
Marr guests Harman & Osborne....
Osborne on Tory posh boys:
'Harriet and I went to the same school'........
Marr probably thinks these tory proposals are a big game changer.
Oh well, Labour will get rid of it soon, so it's not worth arguing too much about.
You can take the Tea Party view that taxation is theft, but please don't try to imply that such a view is logical rather than emotional.
"There are many circumstances of a "spare room", ie you might have children and hope that your grandchildren can visit you now and again. You miss the point in that the people demonising it have spare houses not just spare rooms,
and where are the thousands of spare "smaller" houses to move them too.
It is a horrific policy thought up by rich gits who have spare houses, is shows the Tories for what they are , uncaring nasty barstewards, happy to rob any poor person to keep "
Indeed and people who have lived in a house all their lives are being forced to move because they now find themselves with a spare room. Could be death marriage or anything. Contrast this with the Tories new plan to remove inheritance tax from family homes so that their children-probably into their 60's or 70's-can have a spare house. With no tax to pay
FWIW, I pay 0.25% on my ISA and 0.5% on my other investments.
The reality is that this is a tiny amount of money. If we assume that the next Parliament is 5 years what they are saying that a budget of approximately £120bn will increase to £128bn over 5 years in real terms. That is an increase of just over 6% spread over 5 years, just over 1% a year in real terms. As Osborne pointed out they have pretty much managed that in this Parliament. He could have added that they managed that even when the economy was not growing.
What I find spurious is that politicians of all stripes like to claim that their policies are fully costed. This is always in the context of a major deficit and a range of assumptions about future growth and tax revenues which are so massively more volatile and unpredictable than the sums they are talking about as to bring our debate down to the positioning of the deckchairs on the titanic. It is just absurd and false.
Is it any wonder that the public just don't listen to politicians and eventually make a choice based on their assessment of who they distrust least.
And because the LibDems vetoed the change?
Think yourself lucky you can afford to have the choice to take a bigger mortgage to have a spare room, most of these people have no choices in life.
Count your blessings rather than harbour ill feelings.
If you look at the Midlands and the South, overcrowding is a far greater issue.
Access to housing related welfare is capped for the 80% of households that are private rentals or owner occupied.
Private rentals with spare bedrooms - not allowed
Help with your mortgage - capped.
It's a perfect example of a policy that is right in one part of the country, being wrong in another.
:tumbleweed:
"The fundamental principle is that it will have been built up out of income that has already been taxed, so why should the government get a second bite at the cherry. "
But the effect is to keep privilege going through the generations leading to the horrible class sysem which had bedevilled this country for centuries.
Wouldn't you like people to start with a slightly more even playing field?
And people will say but but he asked an awkward question of Brown. No he didn't, he asked a carefully worded question, that missed the actual accusation and enabled Brown to give an honest denial.
There is plenty on the painting on the net e.g.
www.gla.ac.uk/services/specialcollections/collectionsa-z/hilladamson/disruptionpicture/
www.edinphoto.org.uk/pp_d/pp_hill_paintings_in_oil_disruption.htm
www.edinphoto.org.uk/pp_d/pp_hill_paintings_in_oil_disruptionin_the_%20presbytery_hall.htm#The Disruption Painting
(and a book called 'Mr Hill's Big Picture by J. Fowler) and a key exists - I have a photocopy somewhere - but for the life of me I cannot find a copy of the key on the net. You could always beg one off the Free Church College (where the painting is, on the Mound) as they hand out copies to visitors, or just make an appointment to go and see it when next there. It would also be worth running a check to see if Hill and Adamson photographed your ancestor, if you haven't.
Back to politics - I'm not sure about the SNP connection you raise (partly because of the strength of Episcopalianism in the NE). I'd think more I terms of , Liberal politics, though differently in the Highlands & Islands vs the Lowlands. The laird/people challenge seems to have transmuted to Liberalism and land agitation in the H&I, and the Gladstonian crofting acts (though a historian told me once that in his fview the FC clergy had tended to revert to class allegiances later in the 19th century); hence Charles Kennedy and - perhaps - A. Carmichael (I am not so familiar with Orkney and Shetland kirk history). In the Lowlands the Free Kirk was more middle class and upper working class - millowners rather than peasants including some very active Liberals - as the rather unkind portrayal in Aytoun's short story "The Glenmutchkin Railway" exemplifies (IIRC).
I reckon at least 34% myself but we will see.
Every BJESUS forecast has predicted EICIPM only 25 days till we know who is right BJO or JackW
Ed Miliband Will Never Be Prime Minister
You may well get 34% in the polls.
What that might translate into in the 100 or so key marginals is anyone's guess.
£50: You pay lower than 33% and I will pay if above. Usual rules:
* Al-Beeb GB figures using natural rounding to the nearest integer.
* All bets and debts settled via PtP.
Are you game...?
We will see in 25 days whether your confidence is as merited as your Scottish heritage (cough)
I'm not too worried about the mood music now. It won't have the same impact as in 2007. But you only have to look at some of the comments by the Labour posters downthread who've been lathering themselves up into a frenzy over it. They've fallen into the "tax the poor, benefit the rich" trap, even though it's both fiscally neutral and taxes the rich *even more* to help middle-earners whose homes have increased in value through no fault of their own. Family homes they just want to pass on to their children, and won't understand why Labour thinks this is so unreasonable.
So Labour will probably call it wrong. Just like they did last time.
Has this proosal been thought through? Why the favourable treatment to homes?
Why not just say income taxed during life should not be taxed a second time on death and raise the IHT threashold as a prelude to the abolition of IHT?
There's at least half a million empty bedrooms in social housing
A total fraud.
Try asking the same voters this: "Labour has outlined a series of polices that risk a very significant reduction in the taxes the Govt. collects. This could mean large funding cuts for the NHS. Do you think Labour should implement these policies?"
Then come here and tell us the answers.