Mail on Sunday claiming that UKIP have suppressed their own poll showing Farage behind in Thanet.
Tory 31%, UKIP 30%, Lab 29%
That's still a great poll for Farage - still got every chance of winning a tight three way contest.
The Mail are getting panicked now - they helped create UKIP but now they could easily drive the Tories from office and let Labour back in.
.... Indy: trying to go for the centre ground, and not finding enough there to go for.
Or finding both main parties there (with Lib Dems occupying the tiniest sliver of ground between them) and considering them all a big yawn.
I don't read the Indy much, but I feel that if it was a German paper it would have no trouble getting behind Merkel's CDU, which is currently comfortably in power, albeit with coalition support, which is normal in Germany. Now, the Tories think they are so far to the right of CDU that left their bloc in the European parliament (utterly crass in my opinion, but tells you how they see themselves). Whereas Milliband is trying his best to edge left of where Blair took Labour but without attracting too much attention from Trevor Kavanagh (who seems to think he runs the country). I really don't think there is a centre ground in British politics, and I don't think the electorate knows how to create one, unfortunately.
Introduce PR and you have more of a chance of sensible policies based on reason rather than party politics.
Party politics is what ruins everything for me, I have met people from all parties who I have respected and admired but have met even more from all parties who don't really know what they are doing or know exactly what they are doing and it isn't good.
I don't know enough about how PR might work in the UK, but I really hope it would not mean the end of the system whereby an MP is closely tied to his or her local constituency. I can tell you that the Czechs really admire that, and wish they had it. Their politicians just do not feel the local pressure. The idea that I can email my MP (for @Addickted's info, it's Ed Davey, Lib Dem, Surbiton) and get a proper answer is for them almost Utopian democracy.
Well Ed Davey, Lib Dem MP for Surbiton is almost Utopian democracy himself, but the German system and the Northern Irish system seem to achieve proportional or close to proportional results while maintaining local candidates
Thanks for the links. I can't quite get my head around how either of them work, but that's a problem of my head at this time of night. All I would say is that people in other countries with PR are often suggesting first past the post has advantages. So it's obviously a complex issue. But for me the strong accountability at a local level is really important, and perhaps undervalued by Brits. I only appreciated it after I moved abroad and innocently asked "who is my local MP?"
My rough understanding of the German system is they have two votes - one for local candidates and one for parties. The vote for parties results in a number of seats for each party, of which the winners in the 'local candidates elections' are included. End result is a parliament with proportional representation but many of whom are locally elected.
Northern Irish system is complicated in how the counting is done but very simple to vote. Basically, you put a number 1 to your first choice, a number 2 to your second choice (ie if you can't have your first choice), a number 3 to your third choice and so on. It's like the Alternative Vote but with multiple MPs per constituency, so it's more proportional and less vulnerable to tactical voting.
Yes, but incredibly unworkable in the UK. We have a Chamber that cannot fit more than 400 MPs in! STV (system used in NI) can return 4-6 MPs per constituency!
Mail on Sunday claiming that UKIP have suppressed their own poll showing Farage behind in Thanet.
Tory 31%, UKIP 30%, Lab 29%
That's still a great poll for Farage - still got every chance of winning a tight three way contest.
The Mail are getting panicked now - they helped create UKIP but now they could easily drive the Tories from office and let Labour back in.
.... Indy: trying to go for the centre ground, and not finding enough there to go for.
Or finding both main parties there (with Lib Dems occupying the tiniest sliver of ground between them) and considering them all a big yawn.
I don't read the Indy much, but I feel that if it was a German paper it would have no trouble getting behind Merkel's CDU, which is currently comfortably in power, albeit with coalition support, which is normal in Germany. Now, the Tories think they are so far to the right of CDU that left their bloc in the European parliament (utterly crass in my opinion, but tells you how they see themselves). Whereas Milliband is trying his best to edge left of where Blair took Labour but without attracting too much attention from Trevor Kavanagh (who seems to think he runs the country). I really don't think there is a centre ground in British politics, and I don't think the electorate knows how to create one, unfortunately.
Introduce PR and you have more of a chance of sensible policies based on reason rather than party politics.
Party politics is what ruins everything for me, I have met people from all parties who I have respected and admired but have met even more from all parties who don't really know what they are doing or know exactly what they are doing and it isn't good.
I don't know enough about how PR might work in the UK, but I really hope it would not mean the end of the system whereby an MP is closely tied to his or her local constituency. I can tell you that the Czechs really admire that, and wish they had it. Their politicians just do not feel the local pressure. The idea that I can email my MP (for @Addickted's info, it's Ed Davey, Lib Dem, Surbiton) and get a proper answer is for them almost Utopian democracy.
Well Ed Davey, Lib Dem MP for Surbiton is almost Utopian democracy himself, but the German system and the Northern Irish system seem to achieve proportional or close to proportional results while maintaining local candidates
Thanks for the links. I can't quite get my head around how either of them work, but that's a problem of my head at this time of night. All I would say is that people in other countries with PR are often suggesting first past the post has advantages. So it's obviously a complex issue. But for me the strong accountability at a local level is really important, and perhaps undervalued by Brits. I only appreciated it after I moved abroad and innocently asked "who is my local MP?"
My rough understanding of the German system is they have two votes - one for local candidates and one for parties. The vote for parties results in a number of seats for each party, of which the winners in the 'local candidates elections' are included. End result is a parliament with proportional representation but many of whom are locally elected.
Northern Irish system is complicated in how the counting is done but very simple to vote. Basically, you put a number 1 to your first choice, a number 2 to your second choice (ie if you can't have your first choice), a number 3 to your third choice and so on. It's like the Alternative Vote but with multiple MPs per constituency, so it's more proportional and less vulnerable to tactical voting.
Yes, but incredibly unworkable in the UK. We have a Chamber that cannot fit more than 400 MPs in! STV (system used in NI) can return 4-6 MPs per constituency!
Erm yeah, you change the constuencies so that each one is about 6 times the size of current constituencies and then have 6 MPs per constituency. There's no need for STV to result in more MPs.
The German system might result in a few extra MPs who are popular locally (like Ed Davey in Surbiton) but whose parties are not as popular nationally.
UKIP were 10 % ahead in Thanet South in February - 10% ahead to 1% behind in two months.
IIRC Farage ducked the Newark(?) by election last year on the basis this was a safer bet and he didn't want to risk having to stand down as leader 6 months before an election. How ironic if that decision now comes back to bite him on the backside.
Mail on Sunday claiming that UKIP have suppressed their own poll showing Farage behind in Thanet.
Tory 31%, UKIP 30%, Lab 29%
That's still a great poll for Farage - still got every chance of winning a tight three way contest.
The Mail are getting panicked now - they helped create UKIP but now they could easily drive the Tories from office and let Labour back in.
.... Indy: trying to go for the centre ground, and not finding enough there to go for.
Or finding both main parties there (with Lib Dems occupying the tiniest sliver of ground between them) and considering them all a big yawn.
I don't read the Indy much, but I feel that if it was a German paper it would have no trouble getting behind Merkel's CDU, which is currently comfortably in power, albeit with coalition support, which is normal in Germany. Now, the Tories think they are so far to the right of CDU that left their bloc in the European parliament (utterly crass in my opinion, but tells you how they see themselves). Whereas Milliband is trying his best to edge left of where Blair took Labour but without attracting too much attention from Trevor Kavanagh (who seems to think he runs the country). I really don't think there is a centre ground in British politics, and I don't think the electorate knows how to create one, unfortunately.
Introduce PR and you have more of a chance of sensible policies based on reason rather than party politics.
Party politics is what ruins everything for me, I have met people from all parties who I have respected and admired but have met even more from all parties who don't really know what they are doing or know exactly what they are doing and it isn't good.
I don't know enough about how PR might work in the UK, but I really hope it would not mean the end of the system whereby an MP is closely tied to his or her local constituency. I can tell you that the Czechs really admire that, and wish they had it. Their politicians just do not feel the local pressure. The idea that I can email my MP (for @Addickted's info, it's Ed Davey, Lib Dem, Surbiton) and get a proper answer is for them almost Utopian democracy.
Well Ed Davey, Lib Dem MP for Surbiton is almost Utopian democracy himself, but the German system and the Northern Irish system seem to achieve proportional or close to proportional results while maintaining local candidates
Thanks for the links. I can't quite get my head around how either of them work, but that's a problem of my head at this time of night. All I would say is that people in other countries with PR are often suggesting first past the post has advantages. So it's obviously a complex issue. But for me the strong accountability at a local level is really important, and perhaps undervalued by Brits. I only appreciated it after I moved abroad and innocently asked "who is my local MP?"
My rough understanding of the German system is they have two votes - one for local candidates and one for parties. The vote for parties results in a number of seats for each party, of which the winners in the 'local candidates elections' are included. End result is a parliament with proportional representation but many of whom are locally elected.
Northern Irish system is complicated in how the counting is done but very simple to vote. Basically, you put a number 1 to your first choice, a number 2 to your second choice (ie if you can't have your first choice), a number 3 to your third choice and so on. It's like the Alternative Vote but with multiple MPs per constituency, so it's more proportional and less vulnerable to tactical voting.
Yes, but incredibly unworkable in the UK. We have a Chamber that cannot fit more than 400 MPs in! STV (system used in NI) can return 4-6 MPs per constituency!
Erm yeah, you change the constuencies so that each one is about 6 times the size of current constituencies and then have 6 MPs per constituency. There's no need for STV to result in more MPs.
The German system might result in a few extra MPs who are popular locally (like Ed Davey in Surbiton) but whose parties are not as popular nationally.
The reduction in number of constituencies is another popular "improvement' that I've become distinctly wary of. Do we really want to lose the system which returns people like Ed Davey and indeed Clive Efford partly because they worked bloody hard and were always accessible to their constituents.? That seems to me a huge loss, and you won't know what you've got til its gone.
BTW re the German system, we also have to consider that it's a strongly devolved country, each State has its own parliament. The Czech system is in fact a pale version of the German one without the devolution. People can cast a preference vote, but most just vote for the party. The party has organised its list of candidates in its own rank order and the non-preferential votes are distributed so that the politician at the top of the list gets in. There's no space for local activism, and the idea of a "constituency surgery" is non -existent. I used to believe that PR would improve the UK system, until I went to live in mainstream Europe and discovered the downsides.
Maybe the poll shift in Thanet is down to 'Meet the Ukippers' and other recent publicity which has exposed the policies, personalities and machinations of UKIP. The UKIP people will say they compare with other parties in terms of shenanigans and malarkey, but people don't feel like taking the risk. Have any parties put their 2015 manifestos out there?
Hardly any point talking about changing the electoral system. Two major parties will never agree to it and the Liberal Democrats used their bargaining chips on PR up in 2010. We are stuck with FPTP for a while now, something I think is best. Especially because it instils stability as more often than not returns a strong single party government, with a popular mandate to govern. Also, 67.9% in 2011 rejected AV's implementation.
Hardly any point talking about changing the electoral system. Two major parties will never agree to it and the Liberal Democrats used their bargaining chips on PR up in 2010. We are stuck with FPTP for a while now, something I think is best. Especially because it instils stability as more often than not returns a strong single party government, with a popular mandate to govern. Also, 67.9% in 2011 rejected AV's implementation.
It's not working very well at the moment then.
My problem with FPTP is that it results in seats being won with less than a third of the vote (eg South Thanet poll), is very vulnerable to gerrymandering, and often forces people to vote tactically.
It's a fair point though that AV was rejected so the electoral system is not going to change any time soon. I think AV was a poor option but that's the only one that was offered.
The main problem for me with FPTP is how many votes that are wasted. Anybody that votes for a party that loses is unrepresented.
Anybody who votes for a party who wins by more than one vote is wasted. The two main parties who are the only beneficiaries of FPTP are therefore bound to benefit as the common denominator often becomes voting to keep a party out. How will we ever change a system by not voting for who we want by against who we don't want?
at last the politics of tax makes an appearance. About bloody time, and still not enough, but a start. Anybody that argues the non-doms will quit the country as a result can kindly let us know when and where we can turn up to wave Mr Abramovic off.
I believe in PR, but did not vote in the referendum because what was on offer was a non PR systen that favoured the liberals a little. Was one of the most short sighted acts possible. Why would i want my second choice to count more than my first choice. Ridiculous.
at last the politics of tax makes an appearance. About bloody time, and still not enough, but a start. Anybody that argues the non-doms will quit the country as a result can kindly let us know when and where we can turn up to wave Mr Abramovic off.
This is probably me taking a narrow view of things - but as I see it, the problem is that there are too many people in some eyes earning too much money, not paying a fair share of tax, and living in the UK.
Assuming that some will leave, which I can see you would be keen to see, we need to find an alternative way to raise the funds that their presence here will generate.
What is the plan to cover that? The Labour Party are not exactly going to cut back on the Welfare bill, and are already promising tax cuts for lower earners. Where is the money going to come from?
Pa why would foreign millionaires and billionaires stay in this country , there's a reason all governments in the past have failed to get rid of it and ed I pretend to have balls won't get rid of it either
at last the politics of tax makes an appearance. About bloody time, and still not enough, but a start. Anybody that argues the non-doms will quit the country as a result can kindly let us know when and where we can turn up to wave Mr Abramovic off.
This is probably me taking a narrow view of things - but as I see it, the problem is that there are too many people in some eyes earning too much money, not paying a fair share of tax, and living in the UK.
Assuming that some will leave, which I can see you would be keen to see, we need to find an alternative way to raise the funds that their presence here will generate.
What is the plan to cover that? The Labour Party are not exactly going to cut back on the Welfare bill, and are already promising tax cuts for lower earners. Where is the money going to come from?
In fact they won't leave. Same as the bankers, who just don't want to live in Frankfurt, Zurich or Singapore. Abramovic won't leave London, and not because of Chelsea. (read the lasts books by Bill Browder or Edward Lucas to understand the real agenda there) So why should they swan around enjoying the security and comfort London offers them without paying their contribution? You might also want to check what Lord Paul had to say on the Today programme on Radio 4 (at around 08.10) He is (I think) an Indian who gave up his non dom status. He actually said that the current arrangement invites corruption via political contributions. Quite a compelling interview, and Robert Peston was as always pretty incisive on the issue too.
@north london addick I certainly remain sceptical that Balls will deliver on this. What I can't understand is why more voters are not more bothered about Big Tax avoiders as an issue in this election. The budget deficit is all about failure to increase revenue, not failure to cut enough of this and that as Osbourne wants you to believe. Go out and collect the sodding revenue!!!
Sorry, Peanuts, second espresso, I'll get on with my work:-)
The non-dom move is a smart move by Miliband, the sort of move that only a guy with nothing to lose can afford to make - and that makes it dangerous for Cameron because it forces him to act.
Who can seriously be opposed to this apart from those who would hate Miliband regardless?
Along with sorting out the multinational tax loopholes this is meat and drink for Labour and let's them set the agenda at a crucial stage of the campaign.
It will be very interesting to see what Cameron does in response to this - I am not sure he can afford to ignore it.
It would be interesting to see what sort of returns that would give us and how many 'tax exiles' there actually would be.
That's a tax cut for everyone earning less than £320k per annum. I can imagine it would be popular and with few 'tax exiles'
The top rate of tax is 45% on earnings over £150k per annum. The national average wage is a bit lower than £100k.
For those non-doms who decide to stay, surely they would change things around so it stops being 'income' and becomes something that's taxed at a lower rate, eg dividends.
at last the politics of tax makes an appearance. About bloody time, and still not enough, but a start. Anybody that argues the non-doms will quit the country as a result can kindly let us know when and where we can turn up to wave Mr Abramovic off.
This is probably me taking a narrow view of things - but as I see it, the problem is that there are too many people in some eyes earning too much money, not paying a fair share of tax, and living in the UK.
Assuming that some will leave, which I can see you would be keen to see, we need to find an alternative way to raise the funds that their presence here will generate.
What is the plan to cover that? The Labour Party are not exactly going to cut back on the Welfare bill, and are already promising tax cuts for lower earners. Where is the money going to come from?
In fact they won't leave. Same as the bankers, who just don't want to live in Frankfurt, Zurich or Singapore. Abramovic won't leave London, and not because of Chelsea. (read the lasts books by Bill Browder or Edward Lucas to understand the real agenda there) So why should they swan around enjoying the security and comfort London offers them without paying their contribution? You might also want to check what Lord Paul had to say on the Today programme on Radio 4 (at around 08.10) He is (I think) an Indian who gave up his non dom status. He actually said that the current arrangement invites corruption via political contributions. Quite a compelling interview, and Robert Peston was as always pretty incisive on the issue too.
@north london addick I certainly remain sceptical that Balls will deliver on this. What I can't understand is why more voters are not more bothered about Big Tax avoiders as an issue in this election. The budget deficit is all about failure to increase revenue, not failure to cut enough of this and that as Osbourne wants you to believe. Go out and collect the sodding revenue!!!
Sorry, Peanuts, second espresso, I'll get on with my work:-)
People should be very bothered about it. But most don't understand the scale of it.
at last the politics of tax makes an appearance. About bloody time, and still not enough, but a start. Anybody that argues the non-doms will quit the country as a result can kindly let us know when and where we can turn up to wave Mr Abramovic off.
This is probably me taking a narrow view of things - but as I see it, the problem is that there are too many people in some eyes earning too much money, not paying a fair share of tax, and living in the UK.
Assuming that some will leave, which I can see you would be keen to see, we need to find an alternative way to raise the funds that their presence here will generate.
What is the plan to cover that? The Labour Party are not exactly going to cut back on the Welfare bill, and are already promising tax cuts for lower earners. Where is the money going to come from?
In fact they won't leave. Same as the bankers, who just don't want to live in Frankfurt, Zurich or Singapore. Abramovic won't leave London, and not because of Chelsea. (read the lasts books by Bill Browder or Edward Lucas to understand the real agenda there) So why should they swan around enjoying the security and comfort London offers them without paying their contribution? You might also want to check what Lord Paul had to say on the Today programme on Radio 4 (at around 08.10) He is (I think) an Indian who gave up his non dom status. He actually said that the current arrangement invites corruption via political contributions. Quite a compelling interview, and Robert Peston was as always pretty incisive on the issue too.
@north london addick I certainly remain sceptical that Balls will deliver on this. What I can't understand is why more voters are not more bothered about Big Tax avoiders as an issue in this election. The budget deficit is all about failure to increase revenue, not failure to cut enough of this and that as Osbourne wants you to believe. Go out and collect the sodding revenue!!!
Sorry, Peanuts, second espresso, I'll get on with my work:-)
People should be very bothered about it. But most don't understand the scale of it.
Agree. But then it is puzzling why politicians don't make more of an effort to explain it and make it an issue. the possible reason why this doesn't happen, are rather uncomfortable to consider...
They were just discussing the non dom tax issue on the news.
They were showing Miliband announcing he will scrap it to raise more money.
Then they showed Ed Balls, being interviewed a couple of months ago, saying Labour wouldn't scrap it as, some non doms, would leave and they would end up raising LESS revenue.
They were just discussing the non dom tax issue on the news.
They were showing Miliband announcing he will scrap it to raise more money.
Then they showed Ed Balls, being interviewed a couple of months ago, saying Labour wouldn't scrap it as, some non doms, would leave and they would end up raising LESS revenue.
Vote Labour, they know how to run the economy.
Just seen that. There are always some classic clips like this that come up at election time. #ballsup
The non-dom move is a smart move by Miliband, the sort of move that only a guy with nothing to lose can afford to make - and that makes it dangerous for Cameron because it forces him to act.
Who can seriously be opposed to this apart from those who would hate Miliband regardless?
Well, his chancellor-in-waiting for one who was recently interviewed saying it would reduce the tax take. That lot couldn't organise a shag in a brothel it seems. So the conservatives have to do nothing in response except chuckle a little.
I think the tactic of saying nothing might help the Tories, because the 'right direction, we have to get the money in first' refrain is becoming very predictable.
It would be interesting to see what sort of returns that would give us and how many 'tax exiles' there actually would be.
Applying a small % to a lot gives more than a high % to a few.
There are so few people, relatively, above the £80k level compared to the number below £80k you would just reduce the overall tax revenue by squillions.
If this worked it would have been adopted long ago.
It would be interesting to see what sort of returns that would give us and how many 'tax exiles' there actually would be.
Applying a small % to a lot gives more than a high % to a few.
There are so few people, relatively, above the £80k level compared to the number below £80k you would just reduce the overall tax revenue by squillions.
If this worked it would have been adopted long ago.
But would certainly cut down on the number of foreign footballers in the English leagues. (Or any footballers at all probably.)
Yeah I know. It is actually real, not CGI, and it is relatively recent ('chief whip', not Education). Gove was on Newsnight last night, so he is a heavy hitter. Anyway he is considerably richer than me, I can't afford Game of Thrones, but I do know what he ought to have said about 'GOT' is how it helps the Irish economy, not go on about attacking forces getting hand relief.
More surreal than the wonderful Charlton Aesthetic don't you agree?
The non-dom move is a smart move by Miliband, the sort of move that only a guy with nothing to lose can afford to make - and that makes it dangerous for Cameron because it forces him to act.
Who can seriously be opposed to this apart from those who would hate Miliband regardless?
Well, his chancellor-in-waiting for one who was recently interviewed saying it would reduce the tax take. That lot couldn't organise a shag in a brothel it seems. So the conservatives have to do nothing in response except chuckle a little.
That would be a strange tactic. Labour are allowed to change their policies, just like the Conservatives are allowed to move the goalposts on debt reduction and UKIP are allowed to flip-flop on every policy that isn't "get out of the EU".
For clarity, I don't think there's anything intrinsically wrong with changing policies, just that this isn't unique to Labour.
"When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir?" - JM Keynes
Comments
The German system might result in a few extra MPs who are popular locally (like Ed Davey in Surbiton) but whose parties are not as popular nationally.
BTW re the German system, we also have to consider that it's a strongly devolved country, each State has its own parliament. The Czech system is in fact a pale version of the German one without the devolution. People can cast a preference vote, but most just vote for the party. The party has organised its list of candidates in its own rank order and the non-preferential votes are distributed so that the politician at the top of the list gets in. There's no space for local activism, and the idea of a "constituency surgery" is non -existent. I used to believe that PR would improve the UK system, until I went to live in mainstream Europe and discovered the downsides.
The UKIP people will say they compare with other parties in terms of shenanigans and malarkey, but people don't feel like taking the risk.
Have any parties put their 2015 manifestos out there?
We are stuck with FPTP for a while now, something I think is best. Especially because it instils stability as more often than not returns a strong single party government, with a popular mandate to govern. Also, 67.9% in 2011 rejected AV's implementation.
My problem with FPTP is that it results in seats being won with less than a third of the vote (eg South Thanet poll), is very vulnerable to gerrymandering, and often forces people to vote tactically.
It's a fair point though that AV was rejected so the electoral system is not going to change any time soon. I think AV was a poor option but that's the only one that was offered.
Anybody who votes for a party who wins by more than one vote is wasted. The two main parties who are the only beneficiaries of FPTP are therefore bound to benefit as the common denominator often becomes voting to keep a party out. How will we ever change a system by not voting for who we want by against who we don't want?
Trying to be all serious ,but you just know that they'd vote for any manifesto that lowered the price of beans and rizla. ;-)
Assuming that some will leave, which I can see you would be keen to see, we need to find an alternative way to raise the funds that their presence here will generate.
What is the plan to cover that? The Labour Party are not exactly going to cut back on the Welfare bill, and are already promising tax cuts for lower earners. Where is the money going to come from?
For instance more personal tax bands which increase every 100% rise in salary.
0% up to 10k
5% 10k-20k
10% 20k-40k
20% 40k-80k
30% 80k -160K
40% 160k-320k
50% 320k upwards
60% £1m upwards
70% £10m upwards
It would be interesting to see what sort of returns that would give us and how many 'tax exiles' there actually would be.
@north london addick I certainly remain sceptical that Balls will deliver on this. What I can't understand is why more voters are not more bothered about Big Tax avoiders as an issue in this election. The budget deficit is all about failure to increase revenue, not failure to cut enough of this and that as Osbourne wants you to believe. Go out and collect the sodding revenue!!!
Sorry, Peanuts, second espresso, I'll get on with my work:-)
Who can seriously be opposed to this apart from those who would hate Miliband regardless?
Along with sorting out the multinational tax loopholes this is meat and drink for Labour and let's them set the agenda at a crucial stage of the campaign.
It will be very interesting to see what Cameron does in response to this - I am not sure he can afford to ignore it.
The top rate of tax is 45% on earnings over £150k per annum. The national average wage is a bit lower than £100k.
For those non-doms who decide to stay, surely they would change things around so it stops being 'income' and becomes something that's taxed at a lower rate, eg dividends.
They were showing Miliband announcing he will scrap it to raise more money.
Then they showed Ed Balls, being interviewed a couple of months ago, saying Labour wouldn't scrap it as, some non doms, would leave and they would end up raising LESS revenue.
Vote Labour, they know how to run the economy.
Anyway, for a bit of delectation:
There are so few people, relatively, above the £80k level compared to the number below £80k you would just reduce the overall tax revenue by squillions.
If this worked it would have been adopted long ago.
Gove was on Newsnight last night, so he is a heavy hitter.
Anyway he is considerably richer than me, I can't afford Game of Thrones, but I do know what he ought to have said about 'GOT' is how it helps the Irish economy, not go on about attacking forces getting hand relief.
More surreal than the wonderful Charlton Aesthetic don't you agree?
For clarity, I don't think there's anything intrinsically wrong with changing policies, just that this isn't unique to Labour.
"When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir?" - JM Keynes