They don't seem any more ridiculous than Corbyn as Prime Minister and Abbott as his Home Secretary. That's the nub of this election.
Or May as Prime Minister and Johnson as her Foreign Secretary.
In the Charlton Life echo chamber you're of course right. Outside in the real world Corbyn and Labour are despised or at best mistrusted by most of the electorate. He's not the leader
The real world?
If Charlton Life political forums were representative of the electorate the UK would currently be the poster children of EU integration and Labour would be heading for an electoral landslide. This site definitely doesn't reflect the real world.
This site is far to educated, well read and articulate to reflect the wider electorate.
Missed a couple of days on this thread but couldn't less this go. Too
I bet you're beginning to wish you had less it go now though.
Looks like its global so what's it got to do with the General Election thread?
Because any stick will do to bash the current leadership with.
How would Labour have blocked this from happening?
Probably by ensuring full and appropriate funding for the NHS and its systems, taking action when the warnings became clear and not being fixated on false savings.
There's no doubt that, whoever is in charge of Health in the UK should carry the ultimate responsibility. That's Jeremy Hunt.
But, as soon as his replacement is put in place, they should investigate thoroughly every aspect of why the NHS has been allowed to be crippled by this preventable issue. Including why the NHS in England - under Conservative responsibility - was impacted so much worse than the NHS in Wales, for which Labour is responsible.
But it's not just the NHS, it's companies worldwide. Even Telefonica who were running up to date security and software were compromised by this same attack...
It's the most successful attack in IT history. Well since the Fappening at least. (Keeping it lighthearted at the end here as too many tempers are flaring)
The ultimate solution is to come down hard on these hackers - seeing as they have attacked China and Russia too, surely that is an own goal. They went into this not caring if their actions killed people, so it doesn't bother me how they are dealt with.
Looks like its global so what's it got to do with the General Election thread?
Because any stick will do to bash the current leadership with.
How would Labour have blocked this from happening?
Anyone in power could have not cut the security support as was done in 2016, providing a false economy as the consequences of an attack are much more expensive than protecting against it
Was it not though NHS policy to remain on XP? I believe this to have been the case, because all of the programmes to run our CT machines etc were written in a way that was not future proofed whilst XP was rife.
The download issue is an odd one, only IT and Senior Staff in the NHS have the ability to download on NHS systems, therefore the issue appears to have originated at a higher level than first thought, these same users would have been able to 'ignore' the anti viru/malware/adware warnings.
The government was paying Microsoft to continue security updates for xp until 2015 when they decided to no longer do so.
This paragraph: The British hospitals hit by this latest attack, which weaponised a flaw in Microsoft’s Windows operating system revealed in February, are hopelessly outgunned. They’re running Windows XP, an operating system first released in September 2001, and which Microsoft itself gave up supporting in 2014; it has been kept on life support by extra payments to the company, but the Department of Health stopped making those in 2015.
I believe that if they no longer fund that protection, they should fund the upgrades to a new system with consistent updates from whichever supplier they choose. Not just leave it unprotected. Or switch to Linux or something.
That's a decent article and response.
I suppose the key issue would have been that the whole upgrade plan should have started years ago, so that all the equipment that was written in an XP specific language (Seriously WTF would you do that for?) could have their programmes re-written to work on newer software AND be delivered in a way that means it could be easily upgraded, transferred to new OS and future proofed.
Labour aren't innocent, but the Conservatives are certainly far more to blame for ignoring the issue.
Looks like its global so what's it got to do with the General Election thread?
Because any stick will do to bash the current leadership with.
How would Labour have blocked this from happening?
They wouldn't have.
What seems to be missing from today's political classes though is the Harry S Truman school of politics " The buck stops here"
Is it Hunts fault ? Yes as he's the man in charge.
Don't worry about the unfairness of that. He will be right up the front collecting the congratulations when eventually the NHS gets something to cheer about.
Looks like its global so what's it got to do with the General Election thread?
Because any stick will do to bash the current leadership with.
How would Labour have blocked this from happening?
Probably by ensuring full and appropriate funding for the NHS and its systems, taking action when the warnings became clear and not being fixated on false savings.
There's no doubt that, whoever is in charge of Health in the UK should carry the ultimate responsibility. That's Jeremy Hunt.
But, as soon as his replacement is put in place, they should investigate thoroughly every aspect of why the NHS has been allowed to be crippled by this preventable issue. Including why the NHS in England - under Conservative responsibility - was impacted so much worse than the NHS in Wales, for which Labour is responsible.
But it's not just the NHS, it's companies worldwide. Even Telefonica who were running up to date security and software were compromised by this same attack...
It's the most successful attack in IT history. Well since the Fappening at least. (Keeping it lighthearted at the end here as too many tempers are flaring)
The NHS has, effectively, been shut down for a few hours at least. Notwithstanding the fact other countries and other industries have been impacted, there is one person whose job - whose only job - is to ensure the delivery of an effective, full-time health service to people in Britain.
He's failed and he should, at the very least, explain the decisions he took (or avoided) which resulted in the mess. Then he should resign.
Of course, he won't. So it behoves the Prime Minister to tell the electorate who she will choose to be the Health Secretary in the next Government: Jeremy Hunt or someone else. That way we can determine if she is, as it were, strong or stable.
The ultimate solution is to come down hard on these hackers - seeing as they have attacked China and Russia too, surely that is an own goal. They went into this not caring if their actions killed people, so it doesn't bother me how they are dealt with.
I also find it funny that Anonymous who have historically hacked for the benefit of the world did not step up to deflect the initial hack at least of the NHS systems. It is well within their skill set, however they're probably just too busy expelling Scientology from the web still...
What a time to be alive when wanting the poor to have enough money to buy food is seen as dangerous loony leftism and unaffordable, whereas the party throwing billions down the drain on pointless ideological pet projects are seen as the strong and stable sensible economic choice.
You keep talking about the poor being able to buy food. Has anyone on here said they want to see people starving or have I missed something?
if good poverty.
???
"...of food poverty..."
Sausage fingers aside I think he's got a point myself don't you? Those planning on electing May need to start owning some responsibility for the policies they are voting for. Like increased homelessness, the rise of food banks, child poverty, cuts to our police, military, prison service, social care system, etc, etc, etc. That's what their voting for after all.
Agree completely. Anyone that votes for a party that wants to kill everyone should be held to account.
How about public stonings?
We'll, ignoring the particularly lame attempt at a strawman argument, put it this way, why do you think Tory voters have no responsibility for the effects, which are entirely foreseeable, of the policies of their party of choice? The Tories have stood on a platform of austerity for the last two elections and we are seeing the results of those policies.
Either you're overall happy with those results and will support them again or you think they've got it wrong. I happen to think the second is all.
Your crystal ball would be worth a fortune on the open market.
So there's only two outcomes that can be equated from the last two terms in office? That seems as narrow a minded view as those that support the killing of children.
Well it didn't take a crystal ball to imagine that taking £b's out of the local government budget might lead to problems delivering local council services did it? Or that laying off 1000's of police or prison officers might lead to some issues around law and order. Or that introducing such significant changes to the benefits system might result in people falling through the cracks.
I could go on but the essential point is that having seen (some of) the effects of austerity policies once...voters went out and voted for more of the same so your argument this was unforeseeable is more crystal balls than anything else isn't it?
Have you got two usernames?
Eh? Sorry but I've completely missed whatever point it is you're trying to make.
Regardless, perhaps you could stick the original point, which was whether or not you agree that those that voted Tory have any degree of responsibility for the implementation of the Tory parties policies?
Looks like its global so what's it got to do with the General Election thread?
Because any stick will do to bash the current leadership with.
How would Labour have blocked this from happening?
Probably by ensuring full and appropriate funding for the NHS and its systems, taking action when the warnings became clear and not being fixated on false savings.
There's no doubt that, whoever is in charge of Health in the UK should carry the ultimate responsibility. That's Jeremy Hunt.
But, as soon as his replacement is put in place, they should investigate thoroughly every aspect of why the NHS has been allowed to be crippled by this preventable issue. Including why the NHS in England - under Conservative responsibility - was impacted so much worse than the NHS in Wales, for which Labour is responsible.
But it's not just the NHS, it's companies worldwide. Even Telefonica who were running up to date security and software were compromised by this same attack...
It's the most successful attack in IT history. Well since the Fappening at least. (Keeping it lighthearted at the end here as too many tempers are flaring)
The NHS has, effectively, been shut down for a few hours at least. Notwithstanding the fact other countries and other industries have been impacted, there is one person whose job - whose only job - is to ensure the delivery of an effective, full-time health service to people in Britain.
He's failed and he should, at the very least, explain the decisions he took (or avoided) which resulted in the mess. Then he should resign.
Of course, he won't. So it behoves the Prime Minister to tell the electorate who she will choose to be the Health Secretary in the next Government: Jeremy Hunt or someone else. That way we can determine if she is, as it were, strong or stable.
I blame Microsoft for producing such a shit product that even at the end of it's life, after numerous security patches, it still has so many flaws.
Looks like its global so what's it got to do with the General Election thread?
Because any stick will do to bash the current leadership with.
How would Labour have blocked this from happening?
Probably by ensuring full and appropriate funding for the NHS and its systems, taking action when the warnings became clear and not being fixated on false savings.
There's no doubt that, whoever is in charge of Health in the UK should carry the ultimate responsibility. That's Jeremy Hunt.
But, as soon as his replacement is put in place, they should investigate thoroughly every aspect of why the NHS has been allowed to be crippled by this preventable issue. Including why the NHS in England - under Conservative responsibility - was impacted so much worse than the NHS in Wales, for which Labour is responsible.
But it's not just the NHS, it's companies worldwide. Even Telefonica who were running up to date security and software were compromised by this same attack...
It's the most successful attack in IT history. Well since the Fappening at least. (Keeping it lighthearted at the end here as too many tempers are flaring)
The NHS has, effectively, been shut down for a few hours at least. Notwithstanding the fact other countries and other industries have been impacted, there is one person whose job - whose only job - is to ensure the delivery of an effective, full-time health service to people in Britain.
He's failed and he should, at the very least, explain the decisions he took (or avoided) which resulted in the mess. Then he should resign.
Of course, he won't. So it behoves the Prime Minister to tell the electorate who she will choose to be the Health Secretary in the next Government: Jeremy Hunt or someone else. That way we can determine if she is, as it were, strong or stable.
More to the bloody point where is he? This happened to the NHS on Friday. Three days later as far as I can tell he's not made a public statement about it. And people are happy for this bloke to be running arguably the most important organisation in the UK!
"Mr Hunt was approached by BBC reporters on Monday morning but refused to answer questions on the crisis outside his London home. Asked why he didn’t take action to shore up the NHS’s cyberdefences Mr Hunt said: “Sorry, excuse me” and cycled away on his bike."
Looks like its global so what's it got to do with the General Election thread?
Because any stick will do to bash the current leadership with.
How would Labour have blocked this from happening?
Probably by ensuring full and appropriate funding for the NHS and its systems, taking action when the warnings became clear and not being fixated on false savings.
There's no doubt that, whoever is in charge of Health in the UK should carry the ultimate responsibility. That's Jeremy Hunt.
But, as soon as his replacement is put in place, they should investigate thoroughly every aspect of why the NHS has been allowed to be crippled by this preventable issue. Including why the NHS in England - under Conservative responsibility - was impacted so much worse than the NHS in Wales, for which Labour is responsible.
But it's not just the NHS, it's companies worldwide. Even Telefonica who were running up to date security and software were compromised by this same attack...
It's the most successful attack in IT history. Well since the Fappening at least. (Keeping it lighthearted at the end here as too many tempers are flaring)
The NHS has, effectively, been shut down for a few hours at least. Notwithstanding the fact other countries and other industries have been impacted, there is one person whose job - whose only job - is to ensure the delivery of an effective, full-time health service to people in Britain.
He's failed and he should, at the very least, explain the decisions he took (or avoided) which resulted in the mess. Then he should resign.
Of course, he won't. So it behoves the Prime Minister to tell the electorate who she will choose to be the Health Secretary in the next Government: Jeremy Hunt or someone else. That way we can determine if she is, as it were, strong or stable.
More to the bloody point where is he? This happened to the NHS on Friday. Three days later as far as I can tell he's not made a public statement about it. And people are happy for this bloke to be running arguably the most important organisation in the UK!
"Mr Hunt was approached by BBC reporters on Monday morning but refused to answer questions on the crisis outside his London home. Asked why he didn’t take action to shore up the NHS’s cyberdefences Mr Hunt said: “Sorry, excuse me” and cycled away on his bike."
Looks like its global so what's it got to do with the General Election thread?
Because any stick will do to bash the current leadership with.
How would Labour have blocked this from happening?
Probably by ensuring full and appropriate funding for the NHS and its systems, taking action when the warnings became clear and not being fixated on false savings.
There's no doubt that, whoever is in charge of Health in the UK should carry the ultimate responsibility. That's Jeremy Hunt.
But, as soon as his replacement is put in place, they should investigate thoroughly every aspect of why the NHS has been allowed to be crippled by this preventable issue. Including why the NHS in England - under Conservative responsibility - was impacted so much worse than the NHS in Wales, for which Labour is responsible.
But it's not just the NHS, it's companies worldwide. Even Telefonica who were running up to date security and software were compromised by this same attack...
It's the most successful attack in IT history. Well since the Fappening at least. (Keeping it lighthearted at the end here as too many tempers are flaring)
The NHS has, effectively, been shut down for a few hours at least. Notwithstanding the fact other countries and other industries have been impacted, there is one person whose job - whose only job - is to ensure the delivery of an effective, full-time health service to people in Britain.
He's failed and he should, at the very least, explain the decisions he took (or avoided) which resulted in the mess. Then he should resign.
Of course, he won't. So it behoves the Prime Minister to tell the electorate who she will choose to be the Health Secretary in the next Government: Jeremy Hunt or someone else. That way we can determine if she is, as it were, strong or stable.
More to the bloody point where is he? This happened to the NHS on Friday. Three days later as far as I can tell he's not made a public statement about it. And people are happy for this bloke to be running arguably the most important organisation in the UK!
"Mr Hunt was approached by BBC reporters on Monday morning but refused to answer questions on the crisis outside his London home. Asked why he didn’t take action to shore up the NHS’s cyberdefences Mr Hunt said: “Sorry, excuse me” and cycled away on his bike."
He should be handing in his resignation now or being sacked by May and she should be apologising. C'mon you strong and stable leader, out with it
The view on tax and the rich and labours stance that they have 'got away with it'........
A few examples of tax changes since 2008 (some Labour some Conservative) that I think begs to differ (although you can agree/disagree if it's enough);
Personal allowance in 2008 £6,035, 2017 £11,500 - up 90%. Benefitted everyone until 2010 (see below*)
*Since 2010 those who earn over £100k begin to lose their personal allowance (£1 for every £2 earned) so by £123k there is no personal allowance.
April 2010 the 50p rate came in (previously 40p) for over £150k earners, dropped to 45p in April 2013.
2008 The 40p band started at £34,800 in 2017 it is at £33,500.
January 2013 Child benefit stops for those earning over £60k (think there is a taper from 50-60k so not to have a cliff edge)
2011 NI for upper earners additional rate increased to 2% (from 1% which came in around 2003). Standard rate increased to 12% in 2011 (up from 11%).
Pension tax relief has also changed over the last couple of years for higher earners (as well as the lifetime limit being reduced dramatically) - not exactly the Conservatives giving tax away to their friends.......
So as you can see from a pure taxation perspective, since 2008, the low earners now pay tax above £11,500 a 90% increase on the allowance since 2008 but have seen a 1% increase in NI if they pay it at the Lower level,
Higher earners have depending on earnings levels seen the loss of their personal allowance, the 40p rate come in at a lower monetary value, if they have children they have lost their child allowance, seen a minimum 2% increase on the NI rate, 45p band above £150k (50p for a period).
All good and proper that those with the broader shoulders take the greater of the tax burden, but it does erk me when politicians talk about the financial crisis and the rich somehow getting away with it ever since (when it comes to tax)............
On just pure income tax In 2008 someone on 120k would have earned £6,035 tax free, £34,800 paid 20% and above £40,835 paid 40%. Total tax £38,626. in 2017 the tax would be £41,300, an additional £2,674. If they had two children the child allowance is roughly £1,750. A total amount of £4,424.
Conversely someone on £12k in 2008 would have paid £1,193 in tax, in 2017 they pay £100.........
The view on tax and the rich and labours stance that they have 'got away with it'........
A few examples of tax changes since 2008 (some Labour some Conservative) that I think begs to differ (although you can agree/disagree if it's enough);
Personal allowance in 2008 £6,035, 2017 £11,500 - up 90%. Benefitted everyone until 2010 (see below*)
*Since 2010 those who earn over £100k begin to lose their personal allowance (£1 for every £2 earned) so by £123k there is no personal allowance.
April 2010 the 50p rate came in (previously 40p) for over £150k earners, dropped to 45p in April 2013.
2008 The 40p band started at £34,800 in 2017 it is at £33,500.
January 2013 Child benefit stops for those earning over £60k (think there is a taper from 50-60k so not to have a cliff edge)
2011 NI for upper earners additional rate increased to 2% (from 1% which came in around 2003). Standard rate increased to 12% in 2011 (up from 11%).
Pension tax relief has also changed over the last couple of years for higher earners (as well as the lifetime limit being reduced dramatically) - not exactly the Conservatives giving tax away to their friends.......
So as you can see from a pure taxation perspective, since 2008, the low earners now pay tax above £11,500 a 90% increase on the allowance since 2008 but have seen a 1% increase in NI if they pay it at the Lower level,
Higher earners have depending on earnings levels seen the loss of their personal allowance, the 40p rate come in at a lower monetary value, if they have children they have lost their child allowance, seen a minimum 2% increase on the NI rate, 45p band above £150k (50p for a period).
All good and proper that those with the broader shoulders take the greater of the tax burden, but it does erk me when politicians talk about the financial crisis and the rich somehow getting away with it ever since (when it comes to tax)............
On just pure income tax In 2008 someone on 120k would have earned £6,035 tax free, £34,800 paid 20% and above £40,835 paid 40%. Total tax £38,626. in 2017 the tax would be £41,300, an additional £2,674. If they had two children the child allowance is roughly £1,750. A total amount of £4,424.
Conversely someone on £12k in 2008 would have paid £1,193 in tax, in 2017 they pay £100.........
This is wrong isn't it? Is it not that figure plus the personal allowance, so somewhere around £45k?
The view on tax and the rich and labours stance that they have 'got away with it'........
A few examples of tax changes since 2008 (some Labour some Conservative) that I think begs to differ (although you can agree/disagree if it's enough);
Personal allowance in 2008 £6,035, 2017 £11,500 - up 90%. Benefitted everyone until 2010 (see below*)
*Since 2010 those who earn over £100k begin to lose their personal allowance (£1 for every £2 earned) so by £123k there is no personal allowance.
April 2010 the 50p rate came in (previously 40p) for over £150k earners, dropped to 45p in April 2013.
2008 The 40p band started at £34,800 in 2017 it is at £33,500.
January 2013 Child benefit stops for those earning over £60k (think there is a taper from 50-60k so not to have a cliff edge)
2011 NI for upper earners additional rate increased to 2% (from 1% which came in around 2003). Standard rate increased to 12% in 2011 (up from 11%).
Pension tax relief has also changed over the last couple of years for higher earners (as well as the lifetime limit being reduced dramatically) - not exactly the Conservatives giving tax away to their friends.......
So as you can see from a pure taxation perspective, since 2008, the low earners now pay tax above £11,500 a 90% increase on the allowance since 2008 but have seen a 1% increase in NI if they pay it at the Lower level,
Higher earners have depending on earnings levels seen the loss of their personal allowance, the 40p rate come in at a lower monetary value, if they have children they have lost their child allowance, seen a minimum 2% increase on the NI rate, 45p band above £150k (50p for a period).
All good and proper that those with the broader shoulders take the greater of the tax burden, but it does erk me when politicians talk about the financial crisis and the rich somehow getting away with it ever since (when it comes to tax)............
On just pure income tax In 2008 someone on 120k would have earned £6,035 tax free, £34,800 paid 20% and above £40,835 paid 40%. Total tax £38,626. in 2017 the tax would be £41,300, an additional £2,674. If they had two children the child allowance is roughly £1,750. A total amount of £4,424.
Conversely someone on £12k in 2008 would have paid £1,193 in tax, in 2017 they pay £100.........
Good stats - sure the argument will be its not enough though
The view on tax and the rich and labours stance that they have 'got away with it'........
A few examples of tax changes since 2008 (some Labour some Conservative) that I think begs to differ (although you can agree/disagree if it's enough);
Personal allowance in 2008 £6,035, 2017 £11,500 - up 90%. Benefitted everyone until 2010 (see below*)
*Since 2010 those who earn over £100k begin to lose their personal allowance (£1 for every £2 earned) so by £123k there is no personal allowance.
April 2010 the 50p rate came in (previously 40p) for over £150k earners, dropped to 45p in April 2013.
2008 The 40p band started at £34,800 in 2017 it is at £33,500.
January 2013 Child benefit stops for those earning over £60k (think there is a taper from 50-60k so not to have a cliff edge)
2011 NI for upper earners additional rate increased to 2% (from 1% which came in around 2003). Standard rate increased to 12% in 2011 (up from 11%).
Pension tax relief has also changed over the last couple of years for higher earners (as well as the lifetime limit being reduced dramatically) - not exactly the Conservatives giving tax away to their friends.......
So as you can see from a pure taxation perspective, since 2008, the low earners now pay tax above £11,500 a 90% increase on the allowance since 2008 but have seen a 1% increase in NI if they pay it at the Lower level,
Higher earners have depending on earnings levels seen the loss of their personal allowance, the 40p rate come in at a lower monetary value, if they have children they have lost their child allowance, seen a minimum 2% increase on the NI rate, 45p band above £150k (50p for a period).
All good and proper that those with the broader shoulders take the greater of the tax burden, but it does erk me when politicians talk about the financial crisis and the rich somehow getting away with it ever since (when it comes to tax)............
On just pure income tax In 2008 someone on 120k would have earned £6,035 tax free, £34,800 paid 20% and above £40,835 paid 40%. Total tax £38,626. in 2017 the tax would be £41,300, an additional £2,674. If they had two children the child allowance is roughly £1,750. A total amount of £4,424.
Conversely someone on £12k in 2008 would have paid £1,193 in tax, in 2017 they pay £100.........
This is wrong isn't it? Is it not that figure plus the personal allowance, so somewhere around £45k?
The figures quoted are taxable income above these levels - so are correct in that scenario.
The view on tax and the rich and labours stance that they have 'got away with it'........
A few examples of tax changes since 2008 (some Labour some Conservative) that I think begs to differ (although you can agree/disagree if it's enough);
Personal allowance in 2008 £6,035, 2017 £11,500 - up 90%. Benefitted everyone until 2010 (see below*)
*Since 2010 those who earn over £100k begin to lose their personal allowance (£1 for every £2 earned) so by £123k there is no personal allowance.
April 2010 the 50p rate came in (previously 40p) for over £150k earners, dropped to 45p in April 2013.
2008 The 40p band started at £34,800 in 2017 it is at £33,500.
January 2013 Child benefit stops for those earning over £60k (think there is a taper from 50-60k so not to have a cliff edge)
2011 NI for upper earners additional rate increased to 2% (from 1% which came in around 2003). Standard rate increased to 12% in 2011 (up from 11%).
Pension tax relief has also changed over the last couple of years for higher earners (as well as the lifetime limit being reduced dramatically) - not exactly the Conservatives giving tax away to their friends.......
So as you can see from a pure taxation perspective, since 2008, the low earners now pay tax above £11,500 a 90% increase on the allowance since 2008 but have seen a 1% increase in NI if they pay it at the Lower level,
Higher earners have depending on earnings levels seen the loss of their personal allowance, the 40p rate come in at a lower monetary value, if they have children they have lost their child allowance, seen a minimum 2% increase on the NI rate, 45p band above £150k (50p for a period).
All good and proper that those with the broader shoulders take the greater of the tax burden, but it does erk me when politicians talk about the financial crisis and the rich somehow getting away with it ever since (when it comes to tax)............
On just pure income tax In 2008 someone on 120k would have earned £6,035 tax free, £34,800 paid 20% and above £40,835 paid 40%. Total tax £38,626. in 2017 the tax would be £41,300, an additional £2,674. If they had two children the child allowance is roughly £1,750. A total amount of £4,424.
Conversely someone on £12k in 2008 would have paid £1,193 in tax, in 2017 they pay £100.........
Good stats - sure the argument will be its not enough though
"Tax them until the pips squeak".
(although Dennis Healey never actually said that!).
to the best of anyone's knowledge, have either of Labour or the Tories committed to simplifying tax in their manifestos. I know each offer up different bands, rates for income tax, and they both offer up corporation tax rates. But I'm more interested in an actual commitment to make it less complex
to the best of anyone's knowledge, have either of Labour or the Tories committed to simplifying tax in their manifestos. I know each offer up different bands, rates for income tax, and they both offer up corporation tax rates. But I'm more interested in an actual commitment to make it less complex
The view on tax and the rich and labours stance that they have 'got away with it'........
A few examples of tax changes since 2008 (some Labour some Conservative) that I think begs to differ (although you can agree/disagree if it's enough);
Personal allowance in 2008 £6,035, 2017 £11,500 - up 90%. Benefitted everyone until 2010 (see below*)
*Since 2010 those who earn over £100k begin to lose their personal allowance (£1 for every £2 earned) so by £123k there is no personal allowance.
April 2010 the 50p rate came in (previously 40p) for over £150k earners, dropped to 45p in April 2013.
2008 The 40p band started at £34,800 in 2017 it is at £33,500.
January 2013 Child benefit stops for those earning over £60k (think there is a taper from 50-60k so not to have a cliff edge)
2011 NI for upper earners additional rate increased to 2% (from 1% which came in around 2003). Standard rate increased to 12% in 2011 (up from 11%).
Pension tax relief has also changed over the last couple of years for higher earners (as well as the lifetime limit being reduced dramatically) - not exactly the Conservatives giving tax away to their friends.......
So as you can see from a pure taxation perspective, since 2008, the low earners now pay tax above £11,500 a 90% increase on the allowance since 2008 but have seen a 1% increase in NI if they pay it at the Lower level,
Higher earners have depending on earnings levels seen the loss of their personal allowance, the 40p rate come in at a lower monetary value, if they have children they have lost their child allowance, seen a minimum 2% increase on the NI rate, 45p band above £150k (50p for a period).
All good and proper that those with the broader shoulders take the greater of the tax burden, but it does erk me when politicians talk about the financial crisis and the rich somehow getting away with it ever since (when it comes to tax)............
On just pure income tax In 2008 someone on 120k would have earned £6,035 tax free, £34,800 paid 20% and above £40,835 paid 40%. Total tax £38,626. in 2017 the tax would be £41,300, an additional £2,674. If they had two children the child allowance is roughly £1,750. A total amount of £4,424.
Conversely someone on £12k in 2008 would have paid £1,193 in tax, in 2017 they pay £100.........
Good stats - sure the argument will be its not enough though
Quite possibly which is why I said you could agree/disagree if it's enough or not. My personal opinion is it probably isn't for the really high earners.
Those 'rich' hit hardest are probably those in the 60k to 125k band. For a family it could be a sole earner whose lost their family allowance, pays more 40p tax and as they get above £100k have also lost some or all of their personal allowance.
I think Labours £85k limit is probably too low to start hiking up further. But even they realise it has to be balanced as those over say £200k will likely have totally legal ways to minimise the effect which would kill Labours plans in a heart beat and bring the country to it's knee's which of course will hit the poor hardest.
Anyone see Emily "Sausage Fingers" Thornberry on The Marr Show this morning? What a hoot
I thought her pointing out the fact that Fallon had attended Assad's election party in 2007 was great, myself.
So you think that her pointing out that Fallon had been on an all party trip to meet Assad trumpe Corbyn's undenied support of the IRA? And do you also think that her replies to Marr over Corbyn's 2011 attack on the UN were satisfactory?
The way she fumbles her way through interviews and gets "cross" when the interviewer puts something to her that she's not sure about, makes me doubt her Foreign Secretary credentials, meself
Comments
It's the most successful attack in IT history. Well since the Fappening at least. (Keeping it lighthearted at the end here as too many tempers are flaring)
I suppose the key issue would have been that the whole upgrade plan should have started years ago, so that all the equipment that was written in an XP specific language (Seriously WTF would you do that for?) could have their programmes re-written to work on newer software AND be delivered in a way that means it could be easily upgraded, transferred to new OS and future proofed.
Labour aren't innocent, but the Conservatives are certainly far more to blame for ignoring the issue.
What seems to be missing from today's political classes though is the Harry S Truman school of politics " The buck stops here"
Is it Hunts fault ? Yes as he's the man in charge.
Don't worry about the unfairness of that. He will be right up the front collecting the congratulations when eventually the NHS gets something to cheer about.
He's failed and he should, at the very least, explain the decisions he took (or avoided) which resulted in the mess. Then he should resign.
Of course, he won't. So it behoves the Prime Minister to tell the electorate who she will choose to be the Health Secretary in the next Government: Jeremy Hunt or someone else. That way we can determine if she is, as it were, strong or stable.
Regardless, perhaps you could stick the original point, which was whether or not you agree that those that voted Tory have any degree of responsibility for the implementation of the Tory parties policies?
Edit - he's around but not taking questions...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nhs-cyberattack-cybersecurity-crisis-jeremy-hunt-hiding-labour-lib-dems-general-election-2017-a7736321.html
"Mr Hunt was approached by BBC reporters on Monday morning but refused to answer questions on the crisis outside his London home. Asked why he didn’t take action to shore up the NHS’s cyberdefences Mr Hunt said: “Sorry, excuse me” and cycled away on his bike."
;-)
A few examples of tax changes since 2008 (some Labour some Conservative) that I think begs to differ (although you can agree/disagree if it's enough);
Personal allowance in 2008 £6,035, 2017 £11,500 - up 90%. Benefitted everyone until 2010 (see below*)
*Since 2010 those who earn over £100k begin to lose their personal allowance (£1 for every £2 earned) so by £123k there is no personal allowance.
April 2010 the 50p rate came in (previously 40p) for over £150k earners, dropped to 45p in April 2013.
2008 The 40p band started at £34,800 in 2017 it is at £33,500.
January 2013 Child benefit stops for those earning over £60k (think there is a taper from 50-60k so not to have a cliff edge)
2011 NI for upper earners additional rate increased to 2% (from 1% which came in around 2003). Standard rate increased to 12% in 2011 (up from 11%).
Pension tax relief has also changed over the last couple of years for higher earners (as well as the lifetime limit being reduced dramatically) - not exactly the Conservatives giving tax away to their friends.......
So as you can see from a pure taxation perspective, since 2008, the low earners now pay tax above £11,500 a 90% increase on the allowance since 2008 but have seen a 1% increase in NI if they pay it at the Lower level,
Higher earners have depending on earnings levels seen the loss of their personal allowance, the 40p rate come in at a lower monetary value, if they have children they have lost their child allowance, seen a minimum 2% increase on the NI rate, 45p band above £150k (50p for a period).
All good and proper that those with the broader shoulders take the greater of the tax burden, but it does erk me when politicians talk about the financial crisis and the rich somehow getting away with it ever since (when it comes to tax)............
On just pure income tax In 2008 someone on 120k would have earned £6,035 tax free, £34,800 paid 20% and above £40,835 paid 40%. Total tax £38,626. in 2017 the tax would be £41,300, an additional £2,674. If they had two children the child allowance is roughly £1,750. A total amount of £4,424.
Conversely someone on £12k in 2008 would have paid £1,193 in tax, in 2017 they pay £100.........
(although Dennis Healey never actually said that!).
Those 'rich' hit hardest are probably those in the 60k to 125k band. For a family it could be a sole earner whose lost their family allowance, pays more 40p tax and as they get above £100k have also lost some or all of their personal allowance.
I think Labours £85k limit is probably too low to start hiking up further. But even they realise it has to be balanced as those over say £200k will likely have totally legal ways to minimise the effect which would kill Labours plans in a heart beat and bring the country to it's knee's which of course will hit the poor hardest.
This is an outrageous thing to say and I won't lower the tone, if that was even possible, by commenting further.
Edited, as I'm a few hours late & see Seth has apologised.