politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Don’t expect anything to come of the GOP’s establishment ef

tlg86 said:

JackW said:

JohnLoony said:

Interesting statistics:

63% of white men voted for Ronald Reagan in 1980
63% of white men voted for George Bush snr. in 1988
62% of white men voted for George W. Bush in 2004
62% of white men voted for Mitt Romney in 2012

Hashtag diminishing demographic

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/donald-trump-needs-7-of-10-white-guys-213699?utm_content=buffered237&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer#ixzz41vy43OHg

A very useful article for PBers.

Additionally the hispanic demographic is unsurprisingly proving difficult for Trump. Romney secured 27% of their vote in 12, presently the best estimate is that Trump is managing only 15% of this increasingly important bloc that is vital in a number of swing states.

Jack, do you think it will ever be possible again for a white male to win the White House as the Republican candidate?

Yes. Hovever the GOP need to to heed their own advice after the 2012 defeat when they realised that alienating vast swathes of the electorate wasn't the route to the White House given the demographic changes and the need to appeal to swing voters.

The question is how many times they will lose before the dime finally drops?

Scott_P said:

CarlottaVance said:

RobD said:

CarlottaVance said:

shiney2 said:

An unexpected pro-brexit.

The (financial) times are a changing..

https://tinyurl.com/hjyqx95

(clear your cache if the paywall appears).

Interesting argument against the 'received wisdom':

Scotland. Voting Brexit seems to me to be the best chance we have to save the union. The SNP is threatening to hold another referendum if we vote out. I suspect they don’t really want to (they do good threats). But their members may force them into it and Westminster may allow it (it isn’t a devolved issue). If they do, they won’t win.

The falling oil price has destroyed an already ropey economic case. And the way the timing works, the UK would already be out of the EU before Scotland was out of the UK — leaving it stranded in the North Sea while it reapplied — in the full knowledge that it would have to take the euro and the EU’s fiscal limits with no UK-style federal transfers. Who would vote for that? Quite. And another decisive loss really would be the end of the matter. Vote Brexit to save the union.

A second democratic mandate for the Union in almost as many years?

Which is why Nicola really doesn't want to hold it.....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/matt/?cartoon=12178377&cc=12181295

I see the Scotland hating Chuckle brothers are busy on the thread, was the Scottish London Sockpuppet Conservative Conference that bad

richardDodd said:

David Herdson All I get from the state is a pension of under £140 pw..I would get more if I stepped off the boat as an illegal..

If you want cuts across the board that includes your pension. You also gain benefit from public spending on transport, police, health (potentially, if not every year), and so on.

Scrapheap_as_was said:

Roger said:

Funny thing but flicking through the last few threads it occurs to me that had Labour chosen ANY of the four other lacklustre candidates they would now more than likely be enjoying seriously large leads in the polls.

The Tories seem to be imploding to no one's advantage. Osborne's plan to remove top rate tax relief on pension contributions is so eminently fair to make it a no brainer yet he cant even get it through. Corbyn and his backers have a lot to answer for

Yet labour kept it for all 13 years... No brainer?

Remember the omnishambles budget? Damian McBride said he recognised all the controversial measures as the ones put forward every year by Treasury civil servants. Perhaps cutting pension tax relief is another from the same source: administratively attractive but politically dangerous.

A better question is why this proposal is all over the papers. Cynics might suggest it was deliberately leaked to provide political cover for a different controversial budget measure.

Philip_Thompson said:

foxinsoxuk said:

tlg86 said:

JackW said:

JohnLoony said:

Interesting statistics:

63% of white men voted for Ronald Reagan in 1980
63% of white men voted for George Bush snr. in 1988
62% of white men voted for George W. Bush in 2004
62% of white men voted for Mitt Romney in 2012

Hashtag diminishing demographic

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/donald-trump-needs-7-of-10-white-guys-213699?utm_content=buffered237&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer#ixzz41vy43OHg

A very useful article for PBers.

Additionally the hispanic demographic is unsurprisingly proving difficult for Trump. Romney secured 27% of their vote in 12, presently the best estimate is that Trump is managing only 15% of this increasingly important bloc that is vital in a number of swing states.

Jack, do you think it will ever be possible again for a white male to win the White House as the Republican candidate?

Given the demographics it is hard to see any Republican in the White House.

It's only a few years since George W Bush won his second term. It's eminently possible for the Republicans to win again, they just may have to change in order to do so. Just like Labour have to change currently and the Tories pre-Cameron had to and Labour pre-Blair had to. It's the cycle of politics and the Republicans haven't reached rock bottom yet.

American politics and its division of power makes it harder I suspect for parties to reach rock bottom though. It's hard to say the Republican message is unpopular when they control the House, the Senate and most of the time until a few weeks ago the SCOTUS.

In the last 12 years the demographics have moved against the Republicans for President. Obviously they do have foci of support in parts of the US. The Senate is crazily skewed to low population Republican States, with Wyoming having the same number of Senators as Pennsylvania or New York, so any Dem POTUS is locked in battle from the start. Americans see these checks and balances as a feature not a bug.

Plato_Says said:

Well that's one way to appeal to Brits thinking of Leaving

In an astonishing attack on Eurosceptics, the European Commission president dismissed those who criticise the EU as forgetting its role in the years since the Second World War.

The former prime minister of Luxembourg who heads the EU's bureaucracy in Brussels said: 'Europe gains whenever again we point out that Europe is a major project for peace.

'Whosoever does not believe in Europe, who doubts Europe, whoever despairs of Europe, should visit the military cemeteries in Europe.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3477073/EU-chief-provokes-fury-telling-Brexit-backers-visit-war-graves-think-quitting-EU.html

Yes all those Luxemburgers who died in German Army uniforms valiantly fighting for an authoritarian Reich.

felix said:

Philip_Thompson said:

felix said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Roger said:

Funny thing but flicking through the last few threads it occurs to me that had Labour chosen ANY of the four other lacklustre candidates they would now more than likely be enjoying seriously large leads in the polls.

The Tories seem to be imploding to no one's advantage. Osborne's plan to remove top rate tax relief on pension contributions is so eminently fair to make it a no brainer yet he cant even get it through. Corbyn and his backers have a lot to answer for

Alternatively, the Tories feel they have a licence to squabble because of Corbyn. Which is very dangerous as if Corbyn goes, the Tory divisions won't just go with it.

Agreed. However it is sad that the pension tax relief is so heavily skewed against the average to low earners. The hysterics from Tebbitt/Fox/IDS are wholly irresponsible. There is no natural majority for their views in the country at large.

It's not that skewed, you don't get taxed on what you contribute that is the same throughout.

Sure higher earners avoid (perfectly legally) more tax but that's because they're paying more tax from what they earn themselves, not because money is being gifted to them. We should never forget that.

Yes I understand but I would prefer a greater advantage to be given to low earners as they are currently much more likely to struggle in retirement. High earners do very well under the current arrangements. I for example got 40% tax relief and now pay only 20% on my pension with a very high personal allowance.

Low earners already have a major advantage. They're untaxed on the first £10k and only pay 20% on the rest. That great advantage is there all the time.

malcolmg said:

CarlottaVance said:

malcolmg said:

Scott_P said:

CarlottaVance said:

RobD said:

CarlottaVance said:

shiney2 said:

An unexpected pro-brexit.

The (financial) times are a changing..

https://tinyurl.com/hjyqx95

(clear your cache if the paywall appears).

Interesting argument against the 'received wisdom':

Scotland. Voting Brexit seems to me to be the best chance we have to save the union. The SNP is threatening to hold another referendum if we vote out. I suspect they don’t really want to (they do good threats). But their members may force them into it and Westminster may allow it (it isn’t a devolved issue). If they do, they won’t win.

The falling oil price has destroyed an already ropey economic case. And the way the timing works, the UK would already be out of the EU before Scotland was out of the UK — leaving it stranded in the North Sea while it reapplied — in the full knowledge that it would have to take the euro and the EU’s fiscal limits with no UK-style federal transfers. Who would vote for that? Quite. And another decisive loss really would be the end of the matter. Vote Brexit to save the union.

A second democratic mandate for the Union in almost as many years?

Which is why Nicola really doesn't want to hold it.....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/matt/?cartoon=12178377&cc=12181295

I see the Scotland hating Chuckle brothers are busy on the thread, was the Scottish London Sockpuppet Conservative Conference that bad

So you're all for SINDYREF2 in the event of BREXIT?

At least someone will have answered your currency question for you......

I would be happy to have it tomorrow, every country in the world has a currency

Do you think Nicola will have the courage of your convictions?

felix said:

Philip_Thompson said:

felix said:

Philip_Thompson said:

felix said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Roger said:

Funny thing but flicking through the last few threads it occurs to me that had Labour chosen ANY of the four other lacklustre candidates they would now more than likely be enjoying seriously large leads in the polls.

The Tories seem to be imploding to no one's advantage. Osborne's plan to remove top rate tax relief on pension contributions is so eminently fair to make it a no brainer yet he cant even get it through. Corbyn and his backers have a lot to answer for

Alternatively, the Tories feel they have a licence to squabble because of Corbyn. Which is very dangerous as if Corbyn goes, the Tory divisions won't just go with it.

Agreed. However it is sad that the pension tax relief is so heavily skewed against the average to low earners. The hysterics from Tebbitt/Fox/IDS are wholly irresponsible. There is no natural majority for their views in the country at large.

It's not that skewed, you don't get taxed on what you contribute that is the same throughout.

Sure higher earners avoid (perfectly legally) more tax but that's because they're paying more tax from what they earn themselves, not because money is being gifted to them. We should never forget that.

Yes I understand but I would prefer a greater advantage to be given to low earners as they are currently much more likely to struggle in retirement. High earners do very well under the current arrangements. I for example got 40% tax relief and now pay only 20% on my pension with a very high personal allowance.

Low earners already have a major advantage. They're untaxed on the first £10k and only pay 20% on the rest. That great advantage is there all the time.

Doesn't everyone get that?

No.

Philip_Thompson said:

Alanbrooke said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Alanbrooke said:

david_herdson said:

richardDodd said:

bb63..I agree about spending less...right across the board..

You might agree and you may well be one of the exceptions who are happy to receive less from the state in cash and/or services, on ideological grounds. However, that such a view is exceptional explains why it's so hard for a government to achieve in a democracy.

so when the PM and CoE talk of taking tough decisions, they're basically lying to our faces.

fair comment.

What lie? The PM and CoE are cutting spending significantly in real terms despite it being hard to achieve in a democracy.

So that seems to confirm that they are taking tough decisions does it not?

No.

They're not.

And Osborne has just about missed every target for deficit elimination he has set himself.

Only a few months back he could have whacked another £4-5 billion off the annual deficit but chose to spend it instead using the OBR as cover. If he won;t take the hit early in Parliament he'll never do it.

Yes.

They are

Government spending is going down in real terms. That is fact whether you like it or not.

The squeeze in the NHS is pretty painful. Just look at the deficits across the board at various Trusts.

My own Trust is keeping the deficit to a modest £40 million again this year. That is a much better than average performance. We have demand rising by about 6% per year every year in terms of admissions and attendances.

felix said:

Philip_Thompson said:

felix said:

Philip_Thompson said:

felix said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Roger said:

Funny thing but flicking through the last few threads it occurs to me that had Labour chosen ANY of the four other lacklustre candidates they would now more than likely be enjoying seriously large leads in the polls.

The Tories seem to be imploding to no one's advantage. Osborne's plan to remove top rate tax relief on pension contributions is so eminently fair to make it a no brainer yet he cant even get it through. Corbyn and his backers have a lot to answer for

Alternatively, the Tories feel they have a licence to squabble because of Corbyn. Which is very dangerous as if Corbyn goes, the Tory divisions won't just go with it.

Agreed. However it is sad that the pension tax relief is so heavily skewed against the average to low earners. The hysterics from Tebbitt/Fox/IDS are wholly irresponsible. There is no natural majority for their views in the country at large.

It's not that skewed, you don't get taxed on what you contribute that is the same throughout.

Sure higher earners avoid (perfectly legally) more tax but that's because they're paying more tax from what they earn themselves, not because money is being gifted to them. We should never forget that.

Yes I understand but I would prefer a greater advantage to be given to low earners as they are currently much more likely to struggle in retirement. High earners do very well under the current arrangements. I for example got 40% tax relief and now pay only 20% on my pension with a very high personal allowance.

Low earners already have a major advantage. They're untaxed on the first £10k and only pay 20% on the rest. That great advantage is there all the time.

Doesn't everyone get that?

No. At an income of £106 000 the personal tax allowance is clawed back. The tax rate between 106 000 and 125 000 is the highest rate (and also the best income at which to make pension contributions).

Alanbrooke said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Alanbrooke said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Alanbrooke said:

david_herdson said:

richardDodd said:

bb63..I agree about spending less...right across the board..

You might agree and you may well be one of the exceptions who are happy to receive less from the state in cash and/or services, on ideological grounds. However, that such a view is exceptional explains why it's so hard for a government to achieve in a democracy.

so when the PM and CoE talk of taking tough decisions, they're basically lying to our faces.

fair comment.

What lie? The PM and CoE are cutting spending significantly in real terms despite it being hard to achieve in a democracy.

So that seems to confirm that they are taking tough decisions does it not?

No.

They're not.

And Osborne has just about missed every target for deficit elimination he has set himself.

Only a few months back he could have whacked another £4-5 billion off the annual deficit but chose to spend it instead using the OBR as cover. If he won;t take the hit early in Parliament he'll never do it.

Yes.

They are

Government spending is going down in real terms. That is fact whether you like it or not.

you don't appear to realise that the speed of decrease is also important.

instead ouf cutting the deficit in one Parliamentary term Osborne will need three.

By the third we'll be back in a downturn and all the numbers will go tits up again.

The sun is shining but the roof aint fixed.

A whole new roof is needing to be built with new foundations and supports.

But I wasn't talking about speed so it's not relevant to what was said. rd63 said the government should cut spending, which it is doing in real terms. Mr Herdson explained why it's difficult to do so, though the government is doing so in real terms. You took the explanation of why it is difficult and ran with it as a justification that the government isn't making any hard decisions.

It is extraordinarily rare throughout history to see a real terms cut in spending but this government has achieved that again and again. You may wish it to go faster but don't deny the direction of travel. Unless you have somehow got reason to think spending is going up in real terms.

Alanbrooke said:

david_herdson said:

richardDodd said:

bb63..I agree about spending less...right across the board..

You might agree and you may well be one of the exceptions who are happy to receive less from the state in cash and/or services, on ideological grounds. However, that such a view is exceptional explains why it's so hard for a government to achieve in a democracy.

so when the PM and CoE talk of taking tough decisions, they're basically lying to our faces.

fair comment.

No, as has been mentioned downthread, the government has had some success in cutting government spend but the reaction to proposals like this show why it's so hard.

david_herdson said:

Alanbrooke said:

david_herdson said:

richardDodd said:

bb63..I agree about spending less...right across the board..

You might agree and you may well be one of the exceptions who are happy to receive less from the state in cash and/or services, on ideological grounds. However, that such a view is exceptional explains why it's so hard for a government to achieve in a democracy.

so when the PM and CoE talk of taking tough decisions, they're basically lying to our faces.

fair comment.

No, as has been mentioned downthread, the government has had some success in cutting government spend but the reaction to proposals like this show why it's so hard.

No the issue is the so called tough decisions. The only tough decisions Dave has taken is the EU ref. where he risks a party split.

Osborne like Brown doesn't do tough deciisions.

Philip_Thompson said:

Alanbrooke said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Alanbrooke said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Alanbrooke said:

david_herdson said:

richardDodd said:

bb63..I agree about spending less...right across the board..

You might agree and you may well be one of the exceptions who are happy to receive less from the state in cash and/or services, on ideological grounds. However, that such a view is exceptional explains why it's so hard for a government to achieve in a democracy.

so when the PM and CoE talk of taking tough decisions, they're basically lying to our faces.

fair comment.

What lie? The PM and CoE are cutting spending significantly in real terms despite it being hard to achieve in a democracy.

So that seems to confirm that they are taking tough decisions does it not?

No.

They're not.

And Osborne has just about missed every target for deficit elimination he has set himself.

Only a few months back he could have whacked another £4-5 billion off the annual deficit but chose to spend it instead using the OBR as cover. If he won;t take the hit early in Parliament he'll never do it.

Yes.

They are

Government spending is going down in real terms. That is fact whether you like it or not.

you don't appear to realise that the speed of decrease is also important.

instead ouf cutting the deficit in one Parliamentary term Osborne will need three.

By the third we'll be back in a downturn and all the numbers will go tits up again.

The sun is shining but the roof aint fixed.

A whole new roof is needing to be built with new foundations and supports.

But I wasn't talking about speed so it's not relevant to what was said. rd63 said the government should cut spending, which it is doing in real terms. Mr Herdson explained why it's difficult to do so, though the government is doing so in real terms. You took the explanation of why it is difficult and ran with it as a justification that the government isn't making any hard decisions.

It is extraordinarily rare throughout history to see a real terms cut in spending but this government has achieved that again and again. You may wish it to go faster but don't deny the direction of travel. Unless you have somehow got reason to think spending is going up in real terms.

Right so if in your business you had a huge gaping loss maker you'd just let it roll and as long as the loss is getting a bit less each year you wouldn't mind too much ?

can't see it some how. Time matters.

nigel4england said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Alanbrooke said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Alanbrooke said:

david_herdson said:

richardDodd said:

bb63..I agree about spending less...right across the board..

You might agree and you may well be one of the exceptions who are happy to receive less from the state in cash and/or services, on ideological grounds. However, that such a view is exceptional explains why it's so hard for a government to achieve in a democracy.

so when the PM and CoE talk of taking tough decisions, they're basically lying to our faces.

fair comment.

What lie? The PM and CoE are cutting spending significantly in real terms despite it being hard to achieve in a democracy.

So that seems to confirm that they are taking tough decisions does it not?

No.

They're not.

And Osborne has just about missed every target for deficit elimination he has set himself.

Only a few months back he could have whacked another £4-5 billion off the annual deficit but chose to spend it instead using the OBR as cover. If he won;t take the hit early in Parliament he'll never do it.

Yes.

They are

Government spending is going down in real terms. That is fact whether you like it or not.

The squeeze in the NHS is pretty painful. Just look at the deficits across the board at various Trusts.

My own Trust is keeping the deficit to a modest £40 million again this year. That is a much better than average performance. We have demand rising by about 6% per year every year in terms of admissions and attendances.

Why do think that is?

Mostly it is an ageing population. Most healthcare expenditure is in the last two years of life. Dementia, diabetes osteoporosis, arthritis, cancer all get far more common with age. The cost of an average person over 75 to the NHS is 13 times someone of working age (and that figure is just cost, obviously it is people of working age who also pay most in!). An 85 year old is 25 times more likely to spend a night in hospital than an under 65 etc etc. Both figures are from the DoH.

nigel4england said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

david_herdson said:

Alanbrooke said:

david_herdson said:

richardDodd said:

bb63..I agree about spending less...right across the board..

You might agree and you may well be one of the exceptions who are happy to receive less from the state in cash and/or services, on ideological grounds. However, that such a view is exceptional explains why it's so hard for a government to achieve in a democracy.

so when the PM and CoE talk of taking tough decisions, they're basically lying to our faces.

fair comment.

No, as has been mentioned downthread, the government has had some success in cutting government spend but the reaction to proposals like this show why it's so hard.

No; reducing pension tax relief is not cutting spending but increasing tax.

Reducing a subsidy is increasing tax?

In what way is it a subsidy?

Alanbrooke said:

david_herdson said:

Alanbrooke said:

david_herdson said:

richardDodd said:

bb63..I agree about spending less...right across the board..

You might agree and you may well be one of the exceptions who are happy to receive less from the state in cash and/or services, on ideological grounds. However, that such a view is exceptional explains why it's so hard for a government to achieve in a democracy.

so when the PM and CoE talk of taking tough decisions, they're basically lying to our faces.

fair comment.

No, as has been mentioned downthread, the government has had some success in cutting government spend but the reaction to proposals like this show why it's so hard.

No the issue is the so called tough decisions. The only tough decisions Dave has taken is the EU ref. where he risks a party split.

Osborne like Brown doesn't do tough deciisions.

Bullshit. Spending is going down in real terms. Fact. That is a tough thing to do. Fact.

Spending under Brown more than doubled in real terms. Another fact.

Just because you have a hard on for hating Osborne doesn't make him this myth you like to make out.

In no reality is a Chancellor who has repeatedly cut spending in real terms, one of if not the only Chancellor in history to regularly do so, remotely comparable to a Chancellor and PM who more than doubled spending in real terms. If you can't tell the difference between up and down then I feel very sorry for you.

George Osborne made a bad mistake trailing his pension changes so far in advance. It gave people time to spot what he was doing. In a Parliament with a tiny majority only a few fainthearts on the Conservative backbenches could kill the idea.

felix said:

foxinsoxuk said:

felix said:

Philip_Thompson said:

felix said:

Philip_Thompson said:

felix said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Roger said:

Funny thing but flicking through the last few threads it occurs to me that had Labour chosen ANY of the four other lacklustre candidates they would now more than likely be enjoying seriously large leads in the polls.

The Tories seem to be imploding to no one's advantage. Osborne's plan to remove top rate tax relief on pension contributions is so eminently fair to make it a no brainer yet he cant even get it through. Corbyn and his backers have a lot to answer for

Alternatively, the Tories feel they have a licence to squabble because of Corbyn. Which is very dangerous as if Corbyn goes, the Tory divisions won't just go with it.

Agreed. However it is sad that the pension tax relief is so heavily skewed against the average to low earners. The hysterics from Tebbitt/Fox/IDS are wholly irresponsible. There is no natural majority for their views in the country at large.

It's not that skewed, you don't get taxed on what you contribute that is the same throughout.

Sure higher earners avoid (perfectly legally) more tax but that's because they're paying more tax from what they earn themselves, not because money is being gifted to them. We should never forget that.

Yes I understand but I would prefer a greater advantage to be given to low earners as they are currently much more likely to struggle in retirement. High earners do very well under the current arrangements. I for example got 40% tax relief and now pay only 20% on my pension with a very high personal allowance.

Low earners already have a major advantage. They're untaxed on the first £10k and only pay 20% on the rest. That great advantage is there all the time.

Doesn't everyone get that?

No. At an income of £106 000 the personal tax allowance is clawed back. The tax rate between 106 000 and 125 000 is the highest rate (and also the best income at which to make pension contributions).

Thank you. So not a group likely to be struggling to save for the future.

Nope. The people paying a marginal rate that is highest in the country at over 60% and facing a further tax increase.

Alanbrooke said:

Philip_Thompson said:

A whole new roof is needing to be built with new foundations and supports.

But I wasn't talking about speed so it's not relevant to what was said. rd63 said the government should cut spending, which it is doing in real terms. Mr Herdson explained why it's difficult to do so, though the government is doing so in real terms. You took the explanation of why it is difficult and ran with it as a justification that the government isn't making any hard decisions.

It is extraordinarily rare throughout history to see a real terms cut in spending but this government has achieved that again and again. You may wish it to go faster but don't deny the direction of travel. Unless you have somehow got reason to think spending is going up in real terms.

Right so if in your business you had a huge gaping loss maker you'd just let it roll and as long as the loss is getting a bit less each year you wouldn't mind too much ?

can't see it some how. Time matters.

If my business was running a loss but had a plan to get to profit over time and was actively making steps to meeting that target yes. Especially if I was keeping the confidence of banks with a very cheap and getting cheaper line of credit from the banks because they viewed my business as secure and safe. So long as Osborne keeps making progress in a difficult job he is doing the right thing and something almost unprecedented in our nations history.

nigel4england said:

david_herdson said:

nigel4england said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

david_herdson said:

Alanbrooke said:

david_herdson said:

richardDodd said:

bb63..I agree about spending less...right across the board..

You might agree and you may well be one of the exceptions who are happy to receive less from the state in cash and/or services, on ideological grounds. However, that such a view is exceptional explains why it's so hard for a government to achieve in a democracy.

so when the PM and CoE talk of taking tough decisions, they're basically lying to our faces.

fair comment.

No, as has been mentioned downthread, the government has had some success in cutting government spend but the reaction to proposals like this show why it's so hard.

No; reducing pension tax relief is not cutting spending but increasing tax.

Reducing a subsidy is increasing tax?

In what way is it a subsidy?

david_herdson said:

nigel4england said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

david_herdson said:

Alanbrooke said:

david_herdson said:

richardDodd said:

bb63..I agree about spending less...right across the board..

You might agree and you may well be one of the exceptions who are happy to receive less from the state in cash and/or services, on ideological grounds. However, that such a view is exceptional explains why it's so hard for a government to achieve in a democracy.

so when the PM and CoE talk of taking tough decisions, they're basically lying to our faces.

fair comment.

No, as has been mentioned downthread, the government has had some success in cutting government spend but the reaction to proposals like this show why it's so hard.

No; reducing pension tax relief is not cutting spending but increasing tax.

Reducing a subsidy is increasing tax?

In what way is it a subsidy?

The same way that any form of tax relief is a subsidy, Roger mentioned MIRAS and that is a good example. A more extreme example is the so called bedroom tax.

Don't get me wrong I am not saying the tax relief should not be there but higher rate tax Recife is grossly unfair, and I benefit from it!

The so called bedroom tax is not a tax it is a change in welfare. It has the square root of zero to do with tax.

Alanbrooke said:

david_herdson said:

Which part of 'in a democracy' do you not understand? A government can only do what parliament will let it.

Which part of tough decision don't you ?

If you elect the guys to do the hard slog they should do it. If they can'y do it they should traispae around the place saying they're doing the tough stuff. Setting voter expectations in the wrong place is poor politics.

How do you think the government is, against all precedent, getting spending down without taking tough decisions?

Some tough decisions become a bridge too far in a democracy and need to be rowed back on but if they weren't making tough decisions in the first place that'd be moot.

Philip_Thompson said:

Alanbrooke said:

Philip_Thompson said:

A whole new roof is needing to be built with new foundations and supports.

But I wasn't talking about speed so it's not relevant to what was said. rd63 said the government should cut spending, which it is doing in real terms. Mr Herdson explained why it's difficult to do so, though the government is doing so in real terms. You took the explanation of why it is difficult and ran with it as a justification that the government isn't making any hard decisions.

It is extraordinarily rare throughout history to see a real terms cut in spending but this government has achieved that again and again. You may wish it to go faster but don't deny the direction of travel. Unless you have somehow got reason to think spending is going up in real terms.

Right so if in your business you had a huge gaping loss maker you'd just let it roll and as long as the loss is getting a bit less each year you wouldn't mind too much ?

can't see it some how. Time matters.

If my business was running a loss but had a plan to get to profit over time and was actively making steps to meeting that target yes. Especially if I was keeping the confidence of banks with a very cheap and getting cheaper line of credit from the banks because they viewed my business as secure and safe. So long as Osborne keeps making progress in a difficult job he is doing the right thing and something almost unprecedented in our nations history.

So you've told the bank you can eliminate the loss in 5 years but now because you wouldn't cut that charity donation to Dfid or invest in that IT system to make your business more profitable, you won't return to profit for 12 years even on your own flaky forecast.

What do you think the bank will say ?

nigel4england said:

david_herdson said:

nigel4england said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

david_herdson said:

Alanbrooke said:

david_herdson said:

richardDodd said:

bb63..I agree about spending less...right across the board..

You might agree and you may well be one of the exceptions who are happy to receive less from the state in cash and/or services, on ideological grounds. However, that such a view is exceptional explains why it's so hard for a government to achieve in a democracy.

so when the PM and CoE talk of taking tough decisions, they're basically lying to our faces.

fair comment.

No, as has been mentioned downthread, the government has had some success in cutting government spend but the reaction to proposals like this show why it's so hard.

No; reducing pension tax relief is not cutting spending but increasing tax.

Reducing a subsidy is increasing tax?

In what way is it a subsidy?

david_herdson said:

nigel4england said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

david_herdson said:

Alanbrooke said:

david_herdson said:

richardDodd said:

bb63..I agree about spending less...right across the board..

You might agree and you may well be one of the exceptions who are happy to receive less from the state in cash and/or services, on ideological grounds. However, that such a view is exceptional explains why it's so hard for a government to achieve in a democracy.

so when the PM and CoE talk of taking tough decisions, they're basically lying to our faces.

fair comment.

No, as has been mentioned downthread, the government has had some success in cutting government spend but the reaction to proposals like this show why it's so hard.

No; reducing pension tax relief is not cutting spending but increasing tax.

Reducing a subsidy is increasing tax?

In what way is it a subsidy?

The same way that any form of tax relief is a subsidy, Roger mentioned MIRAS and that is a good example. A more extreme example is the so called bedroom tax.

Don't get me wrong I am not saying the tax relief should not be there but higher rate tax relief is grossly unfair, and I benefit from it!

People being able to spend their own money pre-tax isn't a subsidy, it's a tax exclusion. Housing benefit - money received directly from the government - is, I agree, a subsidy

malcolmg said:

CarlottaVance said:

malcolmg said:

Scott_P said:

CarlottaVance said:

RobD said:

CarlottaVance said:

shiney2 said:

An unexpected pro-brexit.

The (financial) times are a changing..

https://tinyurl.com/hjyqx95

(clear your cache if the paywall appears).

Interesting argument against the 'received wisdom':

Scotland. Voting Brexit seems to me to be the best chance we have to save the union. The SNP is threatening to hold another referendum if we vote out. I suspect they don’t really want to (they do good threats). But their members may force them into it and Westminster may allow it (it isn’t a devolved issue). If they do, they won’t win.

The falling oil price has destroyed an already ropey economic case. And the way the timing works, the UK would already be out of the EU before Scotland was out of the UK — leaving it stranded in the North Sea while it reapplied — in the full knowledge that it would have to take the euro and the EU’s fiscal limits with no UK-style federal transfers. Who would vote for that? Quite. And another decisive loss really would be the end of the matter. Vote Brexit to save the union.

A second democratic mandate for the Union in almost as many years?

Which is why Nicola really doesn't want to hold it.....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/matt/?cartoon=12178377&cc=12181295

I see the Scotland hating Chuckle brothers are busy on the thread, was the Scottish London Sockpuppet Conservative Conference that bad

So you're all for SINDYREF2 in the event of BREXIT?

At least someone will have answered your currency question for you......

I would be happy to have it tomorrow, every country in the world has a currency

* waves a Zimbabwean 100 trillion dollar banknote at malcolmg *

AlastairMeeks said:

George Osborne made a bad mistake trailing his pension changes so far in advance. It gave people time to spot what he was doing. In a Parliament with a tiny majority only a few fainthearts on the Conservative backbenches could kill the idea.

To be fair, if some fancy-pants pensions lawyer hadn't written a pb leader on the subject, the papers would not even be looking in the right direction.

nigel4england said:

foxinsoxuk said:

nigel4england said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Alanbrooke said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Alanbrooke said:

david_herdson said:

richardDodd said:

bb63..I agree about spending less...right across the board..

You might ay.

so when the PM and CoE talk of taking tough decisions, they're basically lying to our faces.

fair comment.

What lie? The PM and CoE are cutting spending significantly in real terms despite it

No.

They're not.

And Osborne has just about missed every target for deficit elimination he has set himself.

Only a few months back he could have whacked another £4-5 billion off the annual deficit but chose to spend it instead using the OBR as cover. If he won;t take the hit early in Parliament he'll never do it.

Yes.

They are

The squeeze in the NHS is pretty painful. Just look at the deficits across the board at various Trusts.

Why do think that is?

Mostly it is an ageing population. Most healthcare expenditure is in the last two years of life. Dementia, diabetes osteoporosis, arthritis, cancer all get far more common with age. The cost of an average person over 75 to the NHS is 13 times someone of working age (and that figure is just cost, obviously it is people of working age who also pay most in!). An 85 year old is 25 times more likely to spend a night in hospital than an under 65 etc etc. Both figures are from the DoH.

Yes I know that and totally agree, I am a PMI broker.

But what both you and Innocent Abroad are both trying to avoid saying is that immigration has played a part. Surely it makes sense that any business, or institution with a budget, that suddenly has significantly more customers needs to expand.

Immigrants are overwhelmingly of younger age. They are relatively high users of obstetric, paediatric, GP and non-admitted A/E attendances. These are a tiny fraction of the NHS budgets though. General Practice is only 7% of the NHS budget, but 90% of patient contacts.

The high cost patients to the NHS are the over 65's, and the over 75's and over 85's even more so. These are overwhelmingly either people born in the UK or people who migrated here 3 or more decades ago. Go on any medical, surgical, geriatric, oncology or orthopedic ward - even in a multicultural city like Leicester - and the patients are disproportionally white British.

Immigrants also have a very high employment rate both within and outside the NHS. The net effect is that immigration pays for the care of elderly Britons.

Philip_Thompson said:

Alanbrooke said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Alanbrooke said:

Philip_Thompson said:

A whole new roof is needing to be built with new foundations and supports.

But I wasn't talking about speed so it's not relevant to what was said. rd63 said the government should cut spending, which it is doing in real terms. Mr Herdson explained why it's difficult to do so, though the government is doing so in real terms. You took the explanation of why it is difficult and ran with it as a justification that the government isn't making any hard decisions.

It is extraordinarily rare throughout history to see a real terms cut in spending but this government has achieved that again and again. You may wish it to go faster but don't deny the direction of travel. Unless you have somehow got reason to think spending is going up in real terms.

Right so if in your business you had a huge gaping loss maker you'd just let it roll and as long as the loss is getting a bit less each year you wouldn't mind too much ?

can't see it some how. Time matters.

If my business

So you've told th

What do you think the bank will say ?

Times change so long as I can provide a robust business plan and case to the bank then I will keep my line of credit.

As Osborne has. He has been rewarded for his sound fiscal management and almost unprecedented cutting of real terms spending by seeing his borrowing costs plummet as we are a safe harbour.

If Osborne was remotely the same as Brown, perhaps by increasing rather than cutting spending, the markets would be punishing rather than rewarding him.

Even stranger

Borrowing costs are low because they are low across the world due to QE and central banks forcing rates down.

We lost our AAA rating in casue you hadn't noticed but rates globally are so low it made no difference.

Claiming the benfit of a windfall just looks desperate. You might as well claim he created the fall in oil prices.

JackW said:

Incorrect.

Hispanics will make up 12% of the eligible vote this year only 0.5% below the AA vote.

Their vote in swing states will be 18% in Florida, 17% in Nevada, 15% in Colorado. They will also make up crucial blocs in Virginia and the rust belt states.

The latest Florida poll has Trump +2. Hardly "in the bag".

Alsio 5% of the population of Florida is Jewish and Trump isn't going to get those votes.

http://www.haaretz.com/world-news/u-s-election-2016/1.706970

JackW said:

LondonBob said:

JackW said:

tlg86 said:

JackW said:

JohnLoony said:

Interesting statistics:

63% of white men voted for Ronald Reagan in 1980
63% of white men voted for George Bush snr. in 1988
62% of white men voted for George W. Bush in 2004
62% of white men voted for Mitt Romney in 2012

Hashtag diminishing demographic

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/donald-trump-needs-7-of-10-white-guys-213699?utm_content=buffered237&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer#ixzz41vy43OHg

A very useful article for PBers.

Additionally the hispanic demographic is unsurprisingly proving difficult for Trump. Romney secured 27% of their vote in 12, presently the best estimate is that Trump is managing only 15% of this increasingly important bloc that is vital in a number of swing states.

Jack, do you think it will ever be possible again for a white male to win the White House as the Republican candidate?

Yes. Hovever the GOP need to to heed their own advice after the 2012 defeat when they realised that alienating vast swathes of the electorate wasn't the route to the White House given the demographic changes and the need to appeal to swing voters.

The question is how many times they will lose before the dime finally drops?

Seems it has with those rallying round Trump. Romney got a pathetic share of the historically low turnout of the white vote in 2012. Continuing to run with pro Iraq War and pro amnesty candidates is a recipe for disaster, Trump gives them a chance before immigration turns America into California, a no hope for the GOP. A long way off though as Hispanics remain less than 10% of the vote with it mostly concentrated in states that don't swing, Texas and California. Florida is Trump's second home state and is in the bag already.

Incorrect.

Hispanics will make up 12% of the eligible vote this year only 0.5% below the AA vote.

Their vote in swing states will be 18% in Florida, 17% in Nevada, 15% in Colorado. They will also make up crucial blocs in Virginia and the rust belt states.

The latest Florida poll has Trump +2. Hardly "in the bag".

Hispanics in Florida are usually Cuban-Americans, and often hard right as a legacy of fleeing the communists. Hispanics in the SW are much more working class, and nearly all of Mexican or Central American heritage. It is a very different demographic and migration.

I suspect part of Rubio's problem is that his Hispanic appeal is mostly to the former. The others will be voting Democrat if they vote at all. Class trumps ethnicity in most elections.

foxinsoxuk said:

Immigrants also have a very high employment rate both within and outside the NHS. The net effect is that immigration pays for the care of elderly Britons.

So what happens when the immigrants get old? Do we bring in some more?

Alanbrooke said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Alanbrooke said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Alanbrooke said:

Philip_Thompson said:

A whole new roof is needing to be built with new foundations and supports.

But I wasn't talking about speed so it's not relevant to what was said. rd63 said the government should cut spending, which it is doing in real terms. Mr Herdson explained why it's difficult to do so, though the government is doing so in real terms. You took the explanation of why it is difficult and ran with it as a justification that the government isn't making any hard decisions.

It is extraordinarily rare throughout history to see a real terms cut in spending but this government has achieved that again and again. You may wish it to go faster but don't deny the direction of travel. Unless you have somehow got reason to think spending is going up in real terms.

Right so if in your business you had a huge gaping loss maker you'd just let it roll and as long as the loss is getting a bit less each year you wouldn't mind too much ?

can't see it some how. Time matters.

If my business

So you've told th

What do you think the bank will say ?

Times change so long as I can provide a robust business plan and case to the bank then I will keep my line of credit.

As Osborne has. He has been rewarded for his sound fiscal management and almost unprecedented cutting of real terms spending by seeing his borrowing costs plummet as we are a safe harbour.

If Osborne was remotely the same as Brown, perhaps by increasing rather than cutting spending, the markets would be punishing rather than rewarding him.

Even stranger

Borrowing costs are low because they are low across the world due to QE and central banks forcing rates down.

We lost our AAA rating in casue you hadn't noticed but rates globally are so low it made no difference.

Claiming the benfit of a windfall just looks desperate. You might as well claim he created the fall in oil prices.

You may have had a point if it wasn't for us being able to deal with facts rather than your myths. In the past 12 months bond yields on UK government debt has come down by more than any major western nation. http://www.tradingeconomics.com/bonds

That is not just good luck but good management.

AlastairMeeks said:

George Osborne made a bad mistake trailing his pension changes so far in advance. It gave people time to spot what he was doing. In a Parliament with a tiny majority only a few fainthearts on the Conservative backbenches could kill the idea.

It has been badly handled by Osborne. Another reason to doubt he would be any cop at the top. Added to his early vocal support for the Prime Minister's renegotiation "deal" - and his subsequent personal silence (although someone has got his EU finance chums to pipe up for Project Fear) he has recently lost a lot of credibility.

The real reason "this is not the right time" is the polling on the referendum is way closer than he would have expected when the idea was allowed to escape into the ether. He clearly didn't want to piss off a segment of the electorate and have them vote Leave just to spite him.

There is a delicious irony that if he had the brass neck to say he engineered it so that pissed off pensioners caused the UK to leave the EU, with a swift promise to change back the pension reforms he would actually be out in front in the next leader stakes with the voting Party membership.

Philip_Thompson said:

Alanbrooke said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Alanbrooke said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Alanbrooke said:

Philip_Thompson said:

A whole new roof is needing to be built with new foundations and supports.

But I wasn't talking about speed so it's not relevant to what was said. rd63 said the government should cut spending, which it is doing in real terms. Mr Herdson explained why it's difficult to do so, though the government is doing so in real terms. You took the explanation of why it is difficult and ran with it as a justification that the government isn't making any hard decisions.

It is extraordinarily rare throughout history to see a real terms cut in spending but this government has achieved that again and again. You may wish it to go faster but don't deny the direction of travel. Unless you have somehow got reason to think spending is going up in real terms.

Right so if in your business you had a huge gaping loss maker you'd just let it roll and as long as the loss is getting a bit less each year you wouldn't mind too much ?

can't see it some how. Time matters.

If my business

So you've told th

What do you think the bank will say ?

Times change so long as I can provide a robust business plan and case to the bank then I will keep my line of credit.

As Osborne has. He has been rewarded for his sound fiscal management and almost unprecedented cutting of real terms spending by seeing his borrowing costs plummet as we are a safe harbour.

If Osborne was remotely the same as Brown, perhaps by increasing rather than cutting spending, the markets would be punishing rather than rewarding him.

Even stranger

Borrowing costs are low because they are low across the world due to QE and central banks forcing rates down.

We lost our AAA rating in casue you hadn't noticed but rates globally are so low it made no difference.

Claiming the benfit of a windfall just looks desperate. You might as well claim he created the fall in oil prices.

You may have had a point if it wasn't for us being able to deal with facts rather than your myths. In the past 12 months bond yields on UK government debt has come down by more than any major western nation. http://www.tradingeconomics.com/bonds

That is not just good luck but good management.

In your dreams.

Deficit, BOP, growth, investment all off.

The only true success is employment.

Philip_Thompson said:

Alanbrooke said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Alanbrooke said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Alanbrooke said:

One of the fun things on being in PB is watching how the arguments change.

The Tories who spent ages in 2009 and 2010 criticisng Brown for his policies are now those defending Osborne for implementing the self same policies.

Why Osborne pissing billions away is better than Brown pissing billions away is one of politics great mysteries.

Cutting spending is now the same as increasing spending is it?

It's totally pointless discussing this with you any further you've completely jumped the shark.

Let's talk again when you've learnt the difference between a cut and an increase *rolleyes*

LOL I take it you've run out of road.

You can't understand that a person saying what they'll do and then abysmally failing by the standards they've set themselves isn't success.

While you can't understand that times change and the free market has judged Osborne the same as I have.

You also can't understand why up is not the same as down as much as you flail around trying to change the subject.

Au contraire. Ive been on this board on the self same subject of the deficit longer than you have. And have been totally consistent in the way spending has been managed.

The only thing that has changed is the blue team who savaged Brown for his policies are giving a let for Osborne because he's their man.

Brown's policy was increasing spending
Osborne's policy is cutting spending

Are you really to ignorant to understand there's a difference?

Oh I do understand there's a difference.

Gordon went for the top job by buying everyone doubles at the bar and slapping it on the credit card

George is buyng everyone singles.

But both of them are spending money they don't have.

felix said:

foxinsoxuk said:

felix said:

foxinsoxuk said:

felix said:

Philip_Thompson said:

felix said:

Philip_Thompson said:

It's not that skewed, you don't get taxed on what you contribute that is the same throughout.

Sure higher earners avoid (perfectly legally) more tax but that's because they're paying more tax from what they earn themselves, not because money is being gifted to them. We should never forget that.

Yes I understand but I would prefer a greater advantage to be given to low earners as they are currently much more likely to struggle in retirement. High earners do very well under the current arrangements. I for example got 40% tax relief and now pay only 20% on my pension with a very high personal allowance.

Low earners already have a major advantage. They're untaxed on the first £10k and only pay 20% on the rest. That great advantage is there all the time.

Doesn't everyone get that?

No. At an income of £106 000 the personal tax allowance is clawed back. The tax rate between 106 000 and 125 000 is the highest rate (and also the best income at which to make pension contributions).

Thank you. So not a group likely to be struggling to save for the future.

Nope. The people paying a marginal rate that is highest in the country at over 60% and facing a further tax increase.

Lol - maybe it's personal for you.

It has to be admitted that that there are large numbers of GPs and Drs caught in that particular tax net on their incomes above £106k :-).

But to me the wrinkle was just another of Gordon Brown's cynical hidden backstabbings, and needs to be abolished under the Tax Simplification agenda.

I wonder whether Mr O will ever do so?

Alanbrooke said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Alanbrooke said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Alanbrooke said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Alanbrooke said:

One of the fun things on being in PB is watching how the arguments change.

The Tories who spent ages in 2009 and 2010 criticisng Brown for his policies are now those defending Osborne for implementing the self same policies.

Why Osborne pissing billions away is better than Brown pissing billions away is one of politics great mysteries.

Cutting spending is now the same as increasing spending is it?

It's totally pointless discussing this with you any further you've completely jumped the shark.

Let's talk again when you've learnt the difference between a cut and an increase *rolleyes*

LOL I take it you've run out of road.

You can't understand that a person saying what they'll do and then abysmally failing by the standards they've set themselves isn't success.

While you can't understand that times change and the free market has judged Osborne the same as I have.

You also can't understand why up is not the same as down as much as you flail around trying to change the subject.

Au contraire. Ive been on this board on the self same subject of the deficit longer than you have. And have been totally consistent in the way spending has been managed.

The only thing that has changed is the blue team who savaged Brown for his policies are giving a let for Osborne because he's their man.

Brown's policy was increasing spending
Osborne's policy is cutting spending

Are you really to ignorant to understand there's a difference?

Oh I do understand there's a difference.

Gordon went for the top job by buying everyone doubles at the bar and slapping it on the credit card

George is buyng everyone singles.

But both of them are spending money they don't have.

At last you're starting to face reality and admit there's a difference. Of course it's a lot easier to not increase spending than it is to cut it, which is why we have a Chancellor doing such a thankless and almost unprecedented task. But to put him in the same sentence as Brown is preposterous. If Brown had done an Osborne and cut spending from what he inherited then Brown would have been an excellent Chancellor. But he didn't he doubled it instead.

Now I must go as it's 230 am and I have to get up in 3 hours to catch a flight back to Blighty.

Philip_Thompson said:

Alanbrooke said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Alanbrooke said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Alanbrooke said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Alanbrooke said:

One of the fun things on being in PB is watching how the arguments change.

The Tories who spent ages in 2009 and 2010 criticisng Brown for his policies are now those defending Osborne for implementing the self same policies.

Why Osborne pissing billions away is better than Brown pissing billions away is one of politics great mysteries.

Cutting spending is now the same as increasing spending is it?

It's totally pointless discussing this with you any further you've completely jumped the shark.

Let's talk again when you've learnt the difference between a cut and an increase *rolleyes*

LOL I take it you've run out of road.

You can't understand that a person saying what they'll do and then abysmally failing by the standards they've set themselves isn't success.

While you can't understand that times change and the free market has judged Osborne the same as I have.

You also can't understand why up is not the same as down as much as you flail around trying to change the subject.

Au contraire. Ive been on this board on the self same subject of the deficit longer than you have. And have been totally consistent in the way spending has been managed.

The only thing that has changed is the blue team who savaged Brown for his policies are giving a let for Osborne because he's their man.

Brown's policy was increasing spending
Osborne's policy is cutting spending

Are you really to ignorant to understand there's a difference?

Oh I do understand there's a difference.

Gordon went for the top job by buying everyone doubles at the bar and slapping it on the credit card

George is buyng everyone singles.

But both of them are spending money they don't have.

At last you're starting to face reality and admit there's a difference. Of course it's a lot easier to not increase spending than it is to cut it, which is why we have a Chancellor doing such a thankless and almost unprecedented task. But to put him in the same sentence as Brown is preposterous. If Brown had done an Osborne and cut spending from what he inherited then Brown would have been an excellent Chancellor. But he didn't he doubled it instead.

Now I must go as it's 230 am and I have to get up in 3 hours to catch a flight back to Blighty.

Safe journey Phil