At last. Tax is put properly on the agenda. I like this, and it would make me think about voting for them, if I didn't vote in a seat where they have little chance.
The main question I have, is whether Balls recognises the need to beef up HMRC resources, to achieve this. Gideon cut their budget.
Sorry PA but I think you're confusing me with someone that gives a ...........
Then there is an impostor on this board:-)
Anyway now we have The Tories offering an inheritance tax cut, (not sure what i think of that) while Harriet Harman has just detailed the other tax loopholes Labour would close, which I just have to agree with. For example, I didn't know hedge funds avoid stamp duty on their transactions. They also now claim they will get tough on places like BVI and the Caymans. Not before time.
Tax is on the agenda!
Also having listened to Caroline Lucas on Question Time yesterday, and watched Natalie Bennett just now, I ask myself how on earth they decided Bennett was the better leader than Lucas.
At last. Tax is put properly on the agenda. I like this, and it would make me think about voting for them, if I didn't vote in a seat where they have little chance.
The main question I have, is whether Balls recognises the need to beef up HMRC resources, to achieve this. Gideon cut their budget.
So have we had any more fantasy proposals over night then? Like the same day GP access for over 75's funded by...er...um...well because the Tories are so good at running the economy there's no need for details just yet, just trust them for now.
We don't have enough GP's as things stand, more are set to retire over the next few years and we can't attract newly qualified doctors to general practise yet somehow we're expected to believe this policy is actually viable.
What do others think about the 3 day paid volunteering thing btw?
I think the three day paid volunteering was a desperate attempt to appear to be in favour of the "Big Society" because the personal attacks on Miliband had back fired. The Big Society itself was a (successful) attempt by the Tories to move away from the nasty party image at the last election.
The idea itself could cost one billion quid but no resources will be given to already struggling third sector groups. Apart from that the whole point of volunteering is that you volunteer.
At last. Tax is put properly on the agenda. I like this, and it would make me think about voting for them, if I didn't vote in a seat where they have little chance.
The main question I have, is whether Balls recognises the need to beef up HMRC resources, to achieve this. Gideon cut their budget.
Sorry PA but I think you're confusing me with someone that gives a ...........
Then there is an impostor on this board:-)
Anyway now we have The Tories offering an inheritance tax cut, (not sure what i think of that) while Harriet Harman has just detailed the other tax loopholes Labour would close, which I just have to agree with. For example, I didn't know hedge funds avoid stamp duty on their transactions. They also now claim they will get tough on places like BVI and the Caymans. Not before time.
Tax is on the agenda!
Also having listened to Caroline Lucas on Question Time yesterday, and watched Natalie Bennett just now, I ask myself how on earth they decided Bennett was the better leader than Lucas.
As stamp duty is a three hundred year old anachronism, you have thought Labour would be saying it's pointless and needs to be banned, like non-dom status...... After all every other country seems to get by without it.
At last. Tax is put properly on the agenda. I like this, and it would make me think about voting for them, if I didn't vote in a seat where they have little chance.
The main question I have, is whether Balls recognises the need to beef up HMRC resources, to achieve this. Gideon cut their budget.
Sorry PA but I think you're confusing me with someone that gives a ...........
Then there is an impostor on this board:-)
....
That depends upon what you think it is that I don't give a rat's behind about Chief.
No sweat either way. I could have sworn I read some coherent remarks from you on tax, which I paid great attention to despite being contrary to my natural viewpoint, but maybe I'm confusing you with @Dippenhall. I definitely remember you agreeing with something he had to say on tax.
Anyway, its a sunny day, and I've got work to do in the garden.
So have we had any more fantasy proposals over night then? Like the same day GP access for over 75's funded by...er...um...well because the Tories are so good at running the economy there's no need for details just yet, just trust them for now.
We don't have enough GP's as things stand, more are set to retire over the next few years and we can't attract newly qualified doctors to general practise yet somehow we're expected to believe this policy is actually viable.
What do others think about the 3 day paid volunteering thing btw?
I think the three day paid volunteering was a desperate attempt to appear to be in favour of the "Big Society" because the personal attacks on Miliband had back fired. The Big Society itself was a (successful) attempt by the Tories to move away from the nasty party image at the last election.
The idea itself could cost one billion quid but no resources will be given to already struggling third sector groups. Apart from that the whole point of volunteering is that you volunteer.
It's interesting because in the last election you couldn't move for hearing Big Society this and Big Society that and Big Society with a shiny hat on. Then as soon as they were elected the trail went colder than one of Bill Kurtis's cases: I honestly thought they'd dumped it as something they never really cared about. Then at the fist sign of election trouble, here it is again. Good old Dave, you know he wouldn't forget the Big Society - he just remembers it every five years when he needs it.
According to the IFS, 90% of estates are already under the inheritance tax threshhold (http://election2015.ifs.org.uk/article/conservatives-proposed-cut-to-inheritance-tax-on-main-homes), and so the proposed changes will disproportionately benefit those at the top of the income distribution. It may also have unintended consequences, in that it may discourage pensioners from downsizing to a property that's more appropriate to their needs, because the cash sum they'll be left with would be taxable if left as part of their estate but the house wouldn't be.
It might be good politics, but it's a stupid idea.
This "model" appears to offer 0 seats to the Greens. The only 'Green target' seats where it suggests Labour voters should vote Green are those where it feels Labour are safe or both Labour and Greens are so far behind that it doesn't matter. It doesn't even recommend Labour supporters voting to keep Caroline Lucas in parliament.
I also don't understand the premise. If you believe it's a wasted vote if you don't vote for one of the top two candidates, then why wouldn't you just pick the one of those two who represents you best? Are you supposed to feel like the person elected on the other side of the country is your MP because you swapped with someone there? Or are you focused on national percentages (which is all the Greens would get)?
When I was a kid, there was great focus on the exchange rate. There was a great furore in 1967 when the pound was devalued by 14% in 1967 from $2.80 to $2.40. And Harold Wilson came out with his famous "the pound in your pocket" line. (Ha! It's now $1.46!) The value of the pound was given in virtually every BBC news programme against both the $ and (I think) the Deutsche Mark. Now, it's rare that it ever gets a mention and I expect most people could not give you the answer, even in round terms, to the question "How many $ can you buy for a £?". (In the same way that many Americans can't tell you how many £s or Euros a $ buys them - it's just something that is of no interest to them.)
So was it important, really, all those years ago and, if so, why isn't it now?
It was basically political, in the era when the UK had lost most of its Empire which was seen as a sign of the decline of Britain. A strong pound and a strong trading position with the rest of the World was an emotional play, a sign of running a strong Britain and a vote winner.
So it was willy waving that has gone out of political fashion to be replaced by having a small one, that is current account deficit, almost but not quite the same thing. Now it is what you spend your borrowing on, rather than worrying about the risks of having to continually borrow and whether devaluation matters or not. Yet another debate.
Thought I'd have a browse at the Labour manifesto to see how much they would be costing me.
This came up on the home page of their web site: a flash survey:
Good morning. We're fighting to win the next election.
Are you with us?
YES, I'll be voting Labour
MAYBE, I'm still undecided
That's it. I wonder if they'll be using the results of this remarkable piece of polling in any future publicity? If only they'd gone the whole hog and got rid of the undecided option they could have had a North Korea style 100% verdict!
I'll be back later with my personal cost of a Labour Govt.
Thought I'd have a browse at the Labour manifesto to see how much they would be costing me.
This came up on the home page of their web site: a flash survey:
Good morning. We're fighting to win the next election.
Are you with us?
YES, I'll be voting Labour
MAYBE, I'm still undecided
That's it. I wonder if they'll be using the results of this remarkable piece of polling in any future publicity? If only they'd gone the whole hog and got rid of the undecided option they could have had a North Korea style 100% verdict!
I'll be back later with my personal cost of a Labour Govt.
I have to admit, that that is spectacularly silly of them. But of course it is the party of Alastair Campbell and Peter Mandelson
The manifesto was launched this morning and Ed says he is ready to run the country. But it seems the Labour party don't have the wherewithal to load the manifesto up on their web site to coincide with the launch. Still showing some material that's out for "consultation". Mind you it's such a crap site to navigate around: there doesn't seem to be a menu for publications or press releases....
A good analysis of Miliband bringing 'old' Labour back into play by the BBC's Robert Peston . He explains why 'new' Labour didn't do anything about non doms.
If Miliband does end up as PM then he will be in an incredible position as he will be there on his terms and nobody else's, he will owe nothing to anybody.
Len McCluskey might not agree with you. I get the impression he'll want his pound of flesh.
Extracts from an interview he did last autumn:
"You know Ed, and I hope this doesn't happen, could get run over by a bus tomorrow, it really wouldn't matter who takes his place."
I ask: "The leadership of the Labour Party doesn't matter?"
"No, what matters is the policies. You know we've been saying this to Ed since he became elected. Labour have got to show they're on the side of ordinary, working people.
"If he does that, he'll be the next prime minster, if he fails to do that, then of course, he'll be defeated and he'll be replaced as the leader."
It is clear from this conversation that the union boss is not entirely behind the Labour Leader Ed Miliband.
In 2010, Ed Miliband won the leadership contest with the help of union backing. So how much influence does Len have?
Does Ed Miliband listen to him? I ask if he sometimes gets a bit threatening and says, "look we're not going to associate with you any more if you don't do as I say?"
"No, never threatening."
I point out that I didn't mean it literally. He does accept he has power and influence: "Yeah, undoubtedly because I am the general secretary of Unite."
Clearly there is the need to keep the unions reasonably happy, but it is a far less onerous task keeping them onside (given their only other option is a Tory government) than it is to be in debt to the Sun King.
Every Prime Minister from Thatcher to Cameron has been in thrall to Murdoch - if Miliband gets there without him then that is a watershed moment in British politics right there.
Thought I'd have a browse at the Labour manifesto to see how much they would be costing me.
This came up on the home page of their web site: a flash survey:
Good morning. We're fighting to win the next election.
Are you with us?
YES, I'll be voting Labour
MAYBE, I'm still undecided
That's it. I wonder if they'll be using the results of this remarkable piece of polling in any future publicity? If only they'd gone the whole hog and got rid of the undecided option they could have had a North Korea style 100% verdict!
I'll be back later with my personal cost of a Labour Govt.
I have to admit, that that is spectacularly silly of them. But of course it is the party of Alastair Campbell and Peter Mandelson
No need to bring foul and abusive language into this thread Prague! ;-) Campbell is only slightly lower on my scale than Blair. Son of a doctor, grammar school and Cambridge boy who got his degree by not reading the modern language texts of his course but other people's reviews of them, (by his own admission), then became a porn writer who pretended the stories were about himself. Daily Mirror journo who as soon as became ill through alcoholism, went private. And thats before we consider his upstanding role in the Iraq war which he was utterly unqualified to create a dossier on. Commenting on WMDs in Iraq he said, "Come on, you don't seriously think we won't find anything?" Or the Gilligan/Kelly affair. A slimier piece of work has never graced British politics.
From today's Labour manifesto - I think it's a long-winded way of saying they want fans on the board:
Football clubs are an important part of many people’s identity and sense of belonging. They are more than just businesses. But despite their importance in the lives of their members and supporters, too often there are no effective means for fans to have a say in how their clubs are run. Labour will provide the means for supporters to be a genuine part of their clubs. We will introduce legislation to enable accredited supporters trusts to appoint and remove at least two of the directors of a football club and to purchase shares when the club changes hands. We will also review the role of fan participation in other sports.
We will ensure the Premier League delivers on its promise to invest five per cent of its domestic and international television rights income into funding the grassroots.
Interesting that you cut off his quote at that point..
Was just interested in the business point.
Considering the vast majority of business owners are small businesses/sole traders etc and the way a lot of self employed were hung out to dry by the last labour government (after all, they are the party of the employed working man traditionally) makes me think similarly to colt. Big businesses like banks did well under labour (as they did under the Tories before). And we all know how that turned out.
Interesting that you cut off his quote at that point..
Was just interested in the business point.
Considering the vast majority of business owners are small businesses/sole traders etc and the way a lot of self employed were hung out to dry by the last labour government (after all, they are the party of the employed working man traditionally) makes me think similarly to colt. Big businesses like banks did well under labour (as they did under the Tories before). And we all know how that turned out.
Not sure what you mean by "hung out to dry" but a lot of smaller businesses did just fine under the last Labour government as well.
In fact I don't recall there being too much discussion around the economy full stop back around the turn of the century when things were going well in general terms and we were runnng a budgetary surplus.
Comments
...and I'm a Ukip Kipper
Anyway now we have The Tories offering an inheritance tax cut, (not sure what i think of that) while Harriet Harman has just detailed the other tax loopholes Labour would close, which I just have to agree with. For example, I didn't know hedge funds avoid stamp duty on their transactions. They also now claim they will get tough on places like BVI and the Caymans. Not before time.
Tax is on the agenda!
Also having listened to Caroline Lucas on Question Time yesterday, and watched Natalie Bennett just now, I ask myself how on earth they decided Bennett was the better leader than Lucas.
The idea itself could cost one billion quid but no resources will be given to already struggling third sector groups. Apart from that the whole point of volunteering is that you volunteer.
After all every other country seems to get by without it.
Anyway, its a sunny day, and I've got work to do in the garden.
It might be good politics, but it's a stupid idea.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02n93d7
If he were a stick of rock he'd have the word dork running right through him.
I also don't understand the premise. If you believe it's a wasted vote if you don't vote for one of the top two candidates, then why wouldn't you just pick the one of those two who represents you best? Are you supposed to feel like the person elected on the other side of the country is your MP because you swapped with someone there? Or are you focused on national percentages (which is all the Greens would get)?
Anyway, what's the point?
So it was willy waving that has gone out of political fashion to be replaced by having a small one, that is current account deficit, almost but not quite the same thing. Now it is what you spend your borrowing on, rather than worrying about the risks of having to continually borrow and whether devaluation matters or not. Yet another debate.
This came up on the home page of their web site: a flash survey:
Good morning. We're fighting to win the next election.
Are you with us?
YES, I'll be voting Labour
MAYBE, I'm still undecided
That's it. I wonder if they'll be using the results of this remarkable piece of polling in any future publicity? If only they'd gone the whole hog and got rid of the undecided option they could have had a North Korea style 100% verdict!
I'll be back later with my personal cost of a Labour Govt.
The manifesto was launched this morning and Ed says he is ready to run the country. But it seems the Labour party don't have the wherewithal to load the manifesto up on their web site to coincide with the launch. Still showing some material that's out for "consultation". Mind you it's such a crap site to navigate around: there doesn't seem to be a menu for publications or press releases....
I'll keep looking.
Shambles.
For those interested and to save you time here's the link labour.org.uk/page/-/BritainCanBeBetter-TheLabourPartyManifesto2015.pdf
Unless your a scrounging lay about they ain't no good
;-)
Campbell is only slightly lower on my scale than Blair.
Son of a doctor, grammar school and Cambridge boy who got his degree by not reading the modern language texts of his course but other people's reviews of them, (by his own admission), then became a porn writer who pretended the stories were about himself. Daily Mirror journo who as soon as became ill through alcoholism, went private. And thats before we consider his upstanding role in the Iraq war which he was utterly unqualified to create a dossier on. Commenting on WMDs in Iraq he said, "Come on, you don't seriously think we won't find anything?" Or the Gilligan/Kelly affair.
A slimier piece of work has never graced British politics.
From today's Labour manifesto - I think it's a long-winded way of saying they want fans on the board:
Football clubs are an important part of many people’s identity and sense of belonging. They are more than just businesses. But despite their importance in the lives of their members and supporters, too often there are no effective means for fans to have a say in how their clubs are run. Labour will provide
the means for supporters to be a genuine part of their clubs. We will introduce legislation to enable accredited supporters trusts to appoint and remove at least two of the directors of a football club and to purchase shares when the club changes hands. We will also review the role of fan participation in other sports.
We will ensure the Premier League delivers on its promise to invest five per cent of its domestic and international television rights income into funding the grassroots.
(Unless a party proposed it was illegal for Millwall to ever beat Charlton again, in which case, they have my vote).
In fact I don't recall there being too much discussion around the economy full stop back around the turn of the century when things were going well in general terms and we were runnng a budgetary surplus.