The fundamental direction of travel is correct though. But it needs to be less ambitious and delivered by somebody else. I agree on the maths and the daft idea that tax breaks for business investment is a bad thing.
Burnham does have charisma and might be able to make a less extreme version sellable. Maybe Yvette Cooper could finally be given the shadow chancellor job she should have got in June 2010. The trick will be to find a brief where Kendall disagrees with the Tories enough for her to get the gig.
Chuka is however over.
Re: Wednesday 22nd July 2015
Posted: Wed 22 Jul, 2015 5:40 pm
by citizenJA
For something a little different, from the ONS a couple of days ago:
UK manufacturers’ sales of bikes continue to climb
...the value of UK manufacturer’s sales of bicycles and other cycles increasing rapidly between 2013 and 2014, up two-thirds from £35.6 to £60.2 million.
This positive growth is also reflected in the volume of cycles produced; up 69.8% year-on-year and more than double the amount produced in 2011.
John Plunkett @johnplunkett149 18m18 minutes ago Islington, London
BBC news exec tweeted that Laura Kuenssberg is new BBC political editor, then deleted it. LK apparently not been told...
Oh what joyous news ... she's my all time favourite. She's particularly good at chairing televised hustings in an impartial, detached manner.
Paul Staines/Guido Fawkes' favourite political reporter, says it all.
Re: Wednesday 22nd July 2015
Posted: Wed 22 Jul, 2015 5:51 pm
by SpinningHugo
.
Re: Wednesday 22nd July 2015
Posted: Wed 22 Jul, 2015 5:51 pm
by Tubby Isaacs
SpinningHugo wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:Corbyn's recycled the £120bn tax gap figure, I see.
This comes from one person, Richard Murphy. It's not like its peer reviewed or anything. HMRC have tax gap at £34bn.
This is "pick the number that suits my argument" stuff.
Same sort of stuff the Scottish Government did.
The £5bn figure from the 50p tax band is similarly just made up (and demonstrably wrong).
So he's probably 50% over the theoretical yield, before any behavioural changes are made?
Poor.
Re: Wednesday 22nd July 2015
Posted: Wed 22 Jul, 2015 6:00 pm
by AnatolyKasparov
I expect both Cooper and Burnham to be quite robust in fighting back against the press smearing, though. They have learned from Ed just trusting people would "see through it".
As for Kendall, I would expect the really insidious MSM thing to be hand wringing concern trolling pieces about her being in her late 40s and still unmarried and childless......
(her equivalent of "Ed looks weird" and similarly coded)
Re: Wednesday 22nd July 2015
Posted: Wed 22 Jul, 2015 6:01 pm
by Tubby Isaacs
TechnicalEphemera wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:Corbyn's recycled the £120bn tax gap figure, I see.
This comes from one person, Richard Murphy. It's not like its peer reviewed or anything. HMRC have tax gap at £34bn.
This is "pick the number that suits my argument" stuff.
Same sort of stuff the Scottish Government did.
The £5bn figure from the 50p tax band is similarly just made up (and demonstrably wrong).
The fundamental direction of travel is correct though.
.
It is. Something the SNP have got right, much as I dislike them, with Sturgeon.
Re: Wednesday 22nd July 2015
Posted: Wed 22 Jul, 2015 6:33 pm
by Tubby Isaacs
In other words, they haven’t got a clue whether it is anything near right, or not.
There is, as far as I am aware, only one other commentator on this issue, and that is me.
I did go and see the NAO about it earlier this year.
So, what the NAO is saying is that my approach is simply different.
Do they, then, have an opinion on who might be right?
The NAO's job isn't to audit Richard Murphy. What does he expect?
Re: Wednesday 22nd July 2015
Posted: Wed 22 Jul, 2015 6:39 pm
by Tubby Isaacs
Quite a strong attack on Murphy in an academic paper here.
Jon Stone @joncstone 9 hrs9 hours ago
Tony Blair is pretty much just calling everyone ‘reactionary' this morning. The SNP, the Left…
Meant to check that earlier today because it didn't sound right.
My Collins dictionary says 'Reactionary' means: Opposed to political or social change - or - A person opposed to political change.
The Left wants political and social change. They're screaming for it. Or have I missed something?
Re: Wednesday 22nd July 2015
Posted: Wed 22 Jul, 2015 7:05 pm
by Tubby Isaacs
It's the same thing as when he put the left within "the forces of conservatism".
Re: Wednesday 22nd July 2015
Posted: Wed 22 Jul, 2015 7:17 pm
by TechnicalEphemera
ohsocynical wrote:Jon Stone @joncstone 9 hrs9 hours ago
Tony Blair is pretty much just calling everyone ‘reactionary' this morning. The SNP, the Left…
Meant to check that earlier today because it didn't sound right.
My Collins dictionary says 'Reactionary' means: Opposed to political or social change - or - A person opposed to political change.
The Left wants political and social change. They're screaming for it. Or have I missed something?
I wouldn't classify the SNP as left, they are Nationalists. Their left wing policies exist only to further the cause of independence, and post independence they will become right wing Thatcherite hawks.
I think what Blair means is that the left are the modern day equivalent of the Luddites. I don't agree with him but that is how he sees it. Similarly the SNP (nationalism largely is outdated in Europe) and UKIP who are anti immigration and anti globalisation.
With the exception of the SNP, which is a con trick, the other two positions are a reaction against change that is seen to be bad for those groups personally.
Re: Wednesday 22nd July 2015
Posted: Wed 22 Jul, 2015 7:18 pm
by ohsocynical
ohsocynical wrote:Jon Stone @joncstone 9 hrs9 hours ago
Tony Blair is pretty much just calling everyone ‘reactionary' this morning. The SNP, the Left…
Meant to check that earlier today because it didn't sound right.
My Collins dictionary says 'Reactionary' means: Opposed to political or social change - or - A person opposed to political change.
The Left wants political and social change. They're screaming for it. Or have I missed something?
And going further:
We're reactiionary to want to see children well fed and properly educated and with the chance to do well for themselves when they're adults?
We're reactionary because we want to save a health service that has been the envy of the world?
Wrong to to see an end to people dying when they've been classed fit to work?
Wrong to want a fair days wage for a fair days work?
Reactionary because we want to see bankers and tax evaders and avoiders made to pay their fair share.
Wrong to want to keep the hunting ban and save our wildlife including bees and badgers?
Reactionary to demand decent housing at affordable prices?
Tony Blair can take a running jump....
Re: Wednesday 22nd July 2015
Posted: Wed 22 Jul, 2015 7:25 pm
by citizenJA
Tubby Isaacs wrote:
In other words, they haven’t got a clue whether it is anything near right, or not.
There is, as far as I am aware, only one other commentator on this issue, and that is me.
I did go and see the NAO about it earlier this year.
So, what the NAO is saying is that my approach is simply different.
Do they, then, have an opinion on who might be right?
The NAO's job isn't to audit Richard Murphy. What does he expect?
No, I didn't mean to suggest such a thing.
Murphy's article was about how "tax gap" figures are nebulous due to the subjectivity involved from author's publishing "tax gap" figures using different data, different components for analysis.
I think a strength of Murphy & the NAO possess is transparency - it's vexatious going through an NAO report, dull reading, limited in many ways, but the limitations are discussed without guile. The information is derived from verifiable sources. Murphy's work isn't as dry but he doesn't have the resources of the NAO. Murphy documents his methodology & sources, just as the NAO does. My confidence in the reports from those sources is strengthened.
Is there something about Murphy's work I don't know? Have I overlooked something? Please don't hesitate to let me know.
Re: Wednesday 22nd July 2015
Posted: Wed 22 Jul, 2015 7:27 pm
by citizenJA
Tubby Isaacs wrote:Quite a strong attack on Murphy in an academic paper here.
I didn't see this until after I posted my reply, Tubby Isaacs, thank you.
Re: Wednesday 22nd July 2015
Posted: Wed 22 Jul, 2015 7:36 pm
by AnatolyKasparov
Tubby Isaacs wrote:It's the same thing as when he put the left within "the forces of conservatism".
Originally in his 1999 conference speech, that was very much the right - in retrospect the peak of "leftie" Blair.
However, the Tory press reacted with close to hysteria and that unnerved him - Mandelson soon "redefined" it for him as stroppy anti "reform" teachers, "lazy" public sector workers etc. Despite earlier aberrations like the lone parents cut and the like, that basically marked the start of NL's long drift to the right.
An overlooked but significant moment in our recent political history.
Re: Wednesday 22nd July 2015
Posted: Wed 22 Jul, 2015 7:39 pm
by Tubby Isaacs
citizenJA wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:Quite a strong attack on Murphy in an academic paper here.
Bigger point I'm making is that his schtick is "experts bought by big business are wrong", and we'd never approach eg climate change like that. So it's not good enough for politicians to lap this up as the basis of their positions.
Re: Wednesday 22nd July 2015
Posted: Wed 22 Jul, 2015 7:50 pm
by Tubby Isaacs
TechnicalEphemera wrote:
ohsocynical wrote:Jon Stone @joncstone 9 hrs9 hours ago
Tony Blair is pretty much just calling everyone ‘reactionary' this morning. The SNP, the Left…
Meant to check that earlier today because it didn't sound right.
My Collins dictionary says 'Reactionary' means: Opposed to political or social change - or - A person opposed to political change.
The Left wants political and social change. They're screaming for it. Or have I missed something?
I wouldn't classify the SNP as left, they are Nationalists. Their left wing policies exist only to further the cause of independence, and post independence they will become right wing Thatcherite hawks.
I think what Blair means is that the left are the modern day equivalent of the Luddites. I don't agree with him but that is how he sees it. Similarly the SNP (nationalism largely is outdated in Europe) and UKIP who are anti immigration and anti globalisation.
With the exception of the SNP, which is a con trick, the other two positions are a reaction against change that is seen to be bad for those groups personally.
Private Eye this week flagged up the SNP Business spokesperson at Westminster. She was involved with Business for Scotland, and right in there with the corporation tax cutting SNP agenda.
If they were actually at Wesminster doing anything useful, she'd have to take wee Mhairi aside and put her in the picture. But they aren't doing anything useful except build their brand.
Re: Wednesday 22nd July 2015
Posted: Wed 22 Jul, 2015 7:51 pm
by RogerOThornhill
RobertSnozers wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:I expect both Cooper and Burnham to be quite robust in fighting back against the press smearing, though. They have learned from Ed just trusting people would "see through it".
As for Kendall, I would expect the really insidious MSM thing to be hand wringing concern trolling pieces about her being in her late 40s and still unmarried and childless......
(her equivalent of "Ed looks weird" and similarly coded)
There is that. Re Burnham, the thing about the press smears is that the mud sticks before you can do anything about it. Look at the Sun the other day, basically lying through their teeth about his connection to Mid Staffs and then 'correcting' it the next day in a tiny column that no-one will see. This sort of thing is going to happen on a daily basis.
I can't decide whether the treatment of Kendall is just the basic casual sexism of the Mail or something more concerning. They seem to like her, otherwise.
I noticed the execrable Leo McKinstry at it the other day...
He bangs on about his sentimental devotion to the NHS, yet his record as a Health Secretary and Minister is severely tainted by the infamous Mid-Staffordshire scandal, into which he blocked a full public inquiry.
He's only "severely tainted" because you and other nasty right wing shits keep repeating the same crap.
Re: Wednesday 22nd July 2015
Posted: Wed 22 Jul, 2015 7:56 pm
by rebeccariots2
joncraigSKY @joncraig 5m5 minutes ago
Cooper attacks Burnham in #LBCdebate over privatisation in NHS when he was Health Sec. He says he was doing what No. 10 wanted him to do.
Oh dear. That doesn't sound good - but it's also maybe not a good move by Cooper. She and hubby were very much part of that same government - does she really want to raise the issue of privatisation of the NHS? I understand what they did and why they did it - was working in health partnerships at the time and we did see waiting lists reduce dramatically ... but as the Newsnight interview before the election showed the MSM won't allow any nuance or specific circumstance.
Re: Wednesday 22nd July 2015
Posted: Wed 22 Jul, 2015 8:28 pm
by citizenJA
citizenJA wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:Quite a strong attack on Murphy in an academic paper here.
Tubby, the final paragraph in the December 2012 critique of Murphy's work above, The Tax Gap For Corporation Tax - Oxford University Centre for Business Taxation is the following:
"One should not underestimate the negative consequences that misleading
estimates of the tax gap may produce. As the HMRC has pointed out, they may
undermine public trust in HMRC. Tax collection depends on voluntary
compliance; if any individual believes that others are avoiding tax then he or she
is perhaps less likely to comply voluntarily themselves."
It's my understanding not all all tax avoidance measures are legal, however, I've not read the article closely enough or studied UK tax law well enough to know whether or not the final paragraph isn't a joke.
Re: Wednesday 22nd July 2015
Posted: Wed 22 Jul, 2015 8:32 pm
by citizenJA
Tubby Isaacs wrote:
citizenJA wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:Quite a strong attack on Murphy in an academic paper here.
Saying that someone at a university is "sponsored by big business"? Are scientists who demand action on climate change "sponsored by big business"?
Re: Wednesday 22nd July 2015
Posted: Wed 22 Jul, 2015 8:43 pm
by Tubby Isaacs
rebeccariots2 wrote:
joncraigSKY @joncraig 5m5 minutes ago
Cooper attacks Burnham in #LBCdebate over privatisation in NHS when he was Health Sec. He says he was doing what No. 10 wanted him to do.
Oh dear. That doesn't sound good - but it's also maybe not a good move by Cooper. She and hubby were very much part of that same government - does she really want to raise the issue of privatisation of the NHS? I understand what they did and why they did it - was working in health partnerships at the time and we did see waiting lists reduce dramatically ... but as the Newsnight interview before the election showed the MSM won't allow any nuance or specific circumstance.
Indeed. If you're increasing the overall spend massively, is the fact that some of it is private "privatization" as in selling something off?
Re: Wednesday 22nd July 2015
Posted: Wed 22 Jul, 2015 8:58 pm
by citizenJA
Tubby Isaacs wrote:
citizenJA wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:
Cheers.
There was a bit of afters between the two of them.
Saying that someone at a university is "sponsored by big business"? Are scientists who demand action on climate change "sponsored by big business"?
Give me a specific link on scientists, climate change, the university, sponsoring big business, & peer review & I'll do my best to answer your question.
The research "someone at a university" is working on, documentation offered as evidence within that work, consensus of opinion following peer review on the work, the business interests sponsoring the research are all important to know up front when work by anyone is released.
The Oxford Centre on Business Taxation paper contained links that didn't work & data not matching Murphy's documentation. No fundamental substantiation of the criticism of Murphy's work was demonstrated. The final paragraph was nonsense in relation to the topic of the paper, regardless of tax avoidance or evasion definitions.
I like Murphy but I'm not emotionally attached to him.
My respect for your commentary is sincere & I disagree with you about Murphy & the article criticising his work.
Re: Wednesday 22nd July 2015
Posted: Wed 22 Jul, 2015 9:01 pm
by citizenJA
Tubby Isaacs wrote:Tax avoidance is legal. Tax evasion is illegal.
What she's saying is that if people get an exaggerated sense that everyone is at it, they'll be less likely to comply themselves.
It's my understanding some tax avoidance practices currently used aren't all legal.
Re: Wednesday 22nd July 2015
Posted: Wed 22 Jul, 2015 9:07 pm
by ohsocynical
Former Wokingham MP Sir William van Straubenzee named in Goverment child abuse papers
Tubby Isaacs wrote:Bigger point I'm making is that his schtick is "experts bought by big business are wrong", and we'd never approach eg climate change like that. So it's not good enough for politicians to lap this up as the basis of their positions.
Murphy didn't write about climate change in the articles I was reading.
Please excuse me, Tubby Isaacs, if I've misunderstood your posts, your purpose in writing what you have tonight.
I'm with you completely about the wisdom of politicians not lionising Murphy or anyone else's work.
Re: Wednesday 22nd July 2015
Posted: Wed 22 Jul, 2015 9:14 pm
by Tubby Isaacs
citizenJA wrote:
Saying that someone at a university is "sponsored by big business"? Are scientists who demand action on climate change "sponsored by big business"?
Give me a specific link on scientists, climate change, the university, sponsoring big business, & peer review & I'll do my best to answer your question.
The research "someone at a university" is working on, documentation offered as evidence within that work, consensus of opinion following peer review on the work, the business interests sponsoring the research are all important to know up front when work by anyone is released.
The Oxford Centre on Business Taxation paper contained links that didn't work & data not matching Murphy's documentation. No fundamental substantiation of the criticism of Murphy's work was demonstrated. The final paragraph was nonsense in relation to the topic of the paper, regardless of tax avoidance or evasion definitions.
I like Murphy but I'm not emotionally attached to him.
My respect for your commentary is sincere & I disagree with you about Murphy & the article criticising his work.[/quote]
There are loads of specific criticisms of his methodology in there. She says on the bit on dividends that he doesn't understand the system. She also says he's chosen unrepresentative companies.
Re: Wednesday 22nd July 2015
Posted: Wed 22 Jul, 2015 9:14 pm
by ohsocynical
John Redwood MP says PM needs Labour's help over Scotland and Europe
Tubby Isaacs wrote:There are loads of specific criticisms of his methodology in there. She says on the bit on dividends that he doesn't understand the system. She also says he's chosen unrepresentative companies.
I'll read it again with greater care & judge with less haste.
Re: Wednesday 22nd July 2015
Posted: Wed 22 Jul, 2015 9:24 pm
by AngryAsWell
Email from YC.. swinging back again after reading the blog linked at end
Lots of Labour members and supporters have been getting in touch with me to ask about my position on the Tories’ welfare plans, and the bill which was voted on this week.
So I wanted to write a message to you directly to let you know where I stand.
I’ve argued from the start for Labour to oppose the Tories’ welfare plans and cuts to tax credits and set out our own alternative approach instead.
The Tories would make people worse off in work, reduce work incentives, hit millions of working families, and push more children into poverty.
The reality is that Labour did oppose the Welfare Reform Bill; we voted for a Labour amendment that would have stopped the whole Bill altogether. But that’s got completely lost.
We need to have the confidence to set out an alternative Labour approach – not just think we have to swallow the Tories' plans.
That’s why I’m going to be campaigning over the summer for Labour to go much further in opposing and voting against these plans if we cannot get the changes we need.
And with the news that George Osborne is asking departments to cut another 40% from their budgets, it's clear that these welfare plans are just the beginning. The scale of these planned spending cuts has nothing to do with getting the deficit down, and everything to do with a Tory ideological attack on the public services Britain depends on.
Labour has to be confident enough and serious enough to take the Tories on.
Thanks,
Yvette
Yvette Cooper MP
PS: I’ve written a blog post about the Tories’ plans and what Labour can do to support work and help children out of poverty, and build responsibility and respect into the welfare system. Click here to read my full response: http://www.yvetteforlabour.co.uk/welfarevote" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
-=-=-
Re: Wednesday 22nd July 2015
Posted: Wed 22 Jul, 2015 9:32 pm
by RogerOThornhill
ohsocynical wrote:
Former Wokingham MP Sir William van Straubenzee named in Goverment child abuse papers
In the first of his three set-piece speeches since 7 May, to the NHS Confederation in June, Hunt gushed about being back for a second stint at the Department of Health. “I am incredibly grateful to have the chance to work with the NHS over this very challenging period in its history.”
Some of those who know him well tell a different story, of a cabinet member who hoped he was heading to a different office in the post-election reshuffle but finds himself – a classically short-termist minister – having to deal with a rapidly accumulating set of deep-seated, difficult issues, many of which he did nothing bold or meaningful to sort out in his first spell at the department. One close colleague talks about a series of “timebombs” – worsening staffing shortages, the impossibility of NHS England’s £22bn efficiency savings, the failure to build up health services outside hospitals, on which the future depends – which will go off sooner or later.
Delaying that Stuart Rose report came back to bite him on the arse...must be why there was such a muted reaction to it.
Re: Wednesday 22nd July 2015
Posted: Wed 22 Jul, 2015 10:06 pm
by AngryAsWell
I said a few weeks ago how the Jewish vote had a major effect on Ed losing the election, now the knives are out for JC before the vote has even taken place.
"Who is prepared to point Labour in the right direction on Israel?
Miliband may have inflicted severe damage on Labour's relationship with Britain's Jews, but the hard-left MP would burn the few remaining bridges."
Everything about that sentence sort of screams NO at me Ohso. Haven't we just 'helped' him out re Scotland ... and I bet he's chuckled over his roast quail about it many times since. He got away with doing nothing virtually - just stood back and let Labour bods do the campaigning and take all the shit.
And that's before I read the link!
Re: Wednesday 22nd July 2015
Posted: Wed 22 Jul, 2015 10:12 pm
by AngryAsWell
Sorry but if you have a broken (or possibly broken) foot you do not wait till weekend to go to hospital with it!
"Sarah Vine, an outspoken newspaper columnist, reported that the Justice Secretary was unable to see a doctor during the week because of his busy schedule, and had been left “hobbling around on crutches, chucking down painkillers” due to the lack of Sunday services."
Everything about that sentence sort of screams NO at me Ohso. Haven't we just 'helped' him out re Scotland ... and I bet he's chuckled over his roast quail about it many times since. He got away with doing nothing virtually - just stood back and let Labour bods do the campaigning and take all the shit.
And that's before I read the link!
I can't open that link, says I've not got the right "app"
Re: Wednesday 22nd July 2015
Posted: Wed 22 Jul, 2015 10:19 pm
by AngryAsWell
The Labour Party @UKLabour · 23m23 minutes ago
ICYMI: Watch Part One of this evening's #LBCdebate with @andyburnhammp @YvetteCooperMP @jeremycorbyn & @leicesterliz " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; James Whitfield . tina savage Abdul Alex Michael Goddard David Cameron Looking4U2
The Labour Party @UKLabour · 3m3 minutes ago
WATCH: Part two of the #LBCdebate with @andyburnhammp @YvetteCooperMP @jeremycorbyn @leicesterliz " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Re: Wednesday 22nd July 2015
Posted: Wed 22 Jul, 2015 10:23 pm
by AngryAsWell
As soon as I start posting everyone goes silent.... think I'm being told something....
Re: Wednesday 22nd July 2015
Posted: Wed 22 Jul, 2015 10:24 pm
by AngryAsWell
Exclusive: Government to close NCTL’s flagship teacher training centre