Wednesday 22nd July 2015

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 22 Jul, 2015 1:35 pm

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/j ... %5Egdnnews" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

French tobacconists dump four tonnes of carrots on street in cigarette protest
Pile of vegetables left outside ruling Socialist party’s headquarters in Paris before parliamentary debate on plans to introduce plain packaging

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 22 Jul, 2015 1:35 pm

ohsocynical wrote:
Éoin ‏@LabourEoin 26 mins26 minutes ago

Labour is in grave danger of becoming a populist anti-austerity movement..... warns Tristram Hunt. That is all.
Ummm ????

Did someone hack into his Twitter account?
That's bizarre.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 22 Jul, 2015 1:35 pm

Double post

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 22 Jul, 2015 1:45 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:That said it also gave a remarkably high figure for members joining since 2010. Can the party have changed that much? I just pay my subs and don't attend meetings. What do people who have more of a feel for this than me think? Have we had a high turnover in members?

Labour membership rises by 20,000 since election day
11 MAY, 2015

Labour PartyMembership
Before the election Labour’s membership was already at its highest level for 15 years. But since close of polls – and the dreadful results that followed – Labour’s membership has risen by 20,000 to 221,247.
http://labourlist.org/2015/05/labour-me ... ction-day/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Labour membership crosses the 200,000 mark – the highest level in 15 years
30 APRIL, 2015

A few months ago we reported that Labour Party membership was edging up towards the 200,000 mark (it was around 194,000 at the time). Today the Labour Party have confirmed that the party’s membership is now over 200,000 (200,053 to be precise) – meaning that Labour will go into next week’s election with its largest membership in 15 years.

http://labourlist.org/2015/04/labour-me ... -15-years/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Almost 200,000 – Labour membership rises to highest point since 2005
2 FEBRUARY, 2015

http://labourlist.org/2015/02/almost-20 ... ince-2005/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Wed 22 Jul, 2015 1:52 pm

citizenJA wrote:double post

There's a lot of it about . . . .

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Wed 22 Jul, 2015 2:00 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:Hi all. Have decided to pop back (thanks to Refitman for reactivating my account). I don't know whether or not it's permanent, and you may wish I'd stayed away. I certainly don't have an awful lot of joy to share at the moment! The Labour Party is a seriously depressing organisation to be a member of. I was this close to tearing up my membership card and sending a two-word resignation letter over the Welfare Bill business. Moreover, the Facebook group I joined just after the election (and have now left) suggests that Labour Party members could start a fight in an empty room. Put five of them together and you'd get eight or nine opinions on the same thing. In fact it almost doesn't seem like a single party any more. All parties are by necessity a broad church, but it seems that Labour members are incapable of accepting any opinion beyond their own. There has been some pretty desperate apologism (is that a word?) for Burnham and Cooper's position on the Welfare Bill, accusing people who voted against it of putting the appearance of principle ahead of helping vulnerable people. Militant types have popped up to accuse followers of anyone but Corbyn of being Nazis (presumably Tory wasn't a strong enough insult any more) and called for Progress and Blue Labour etc to be purged. (As an aside, I now think Blue Labour basically got it right. If only it could have come up with a different name). Some want a carbon copy of Blairism. Some want socialism. Those two positions seem so far apart I now wonder how we ever got them in the same party. It seems even harder to see how we can find an accommodation that everyone will be happy with. While right wingers of all stripes seem happy to unite behind a PM they despise for the sake of avoiding something worse, the left is splintering more than ever. I can understand why. A position based on idealism will by necessity be less compromising than one based on self-interest. This feels like the disintegration everyone expected in 2010 and we thought Ed had defused. In reality I think it just festered. There was a sense that Cameron hadn't really won and therefore Labour hadn't really lost, and that was completely swept away. There was a lot of complacency as well, both in terms of the Blairites who would rather snipe than pull their weight, and supporters of Ed who thought a decent man with some decent policies would be enough.

Putting aside the doom and gloom for a moment, what has disappointed me over the the fight for Labour's soul is the lack of any proper analysis. The 'confirmation bias' is stifling any proper study of why Labour lost and how they can win in future. The Blairites insist that the only pattern for success is to mirror Blair with nicer neoliberalism, and all those centrist voters will flood back, because it worked in the past. The left insist that we can just hoover up all those people who didn't vote by being lefter. What we're lacking is any analysis not based on an ideological position, and in particular looking at those factors that don't relate to policy. Perception of competence. Perception of a growing economy so let's not rock the boat (as per Krugman's theory about elections). After all, how much was Blair's success down to policy platform and how much because he looked like something new and people were fed up with the Tories? The Tories' success since 2010 isn't that spectacular or hard to fathom. They shouldn't in reality be hard to beat. On the other hand, they are utterly focussed on securing power and holding onto it. Unfortunately I fear we'll be stuck with them for a long time at this rate.

Hello - lovely to see you!

No, I won't have a sandwich, thanks.

Edited to add a full stop

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Wed 22 Jul, 2015 2:00 pm

Corbyn's economic speech all sounds rather reasonable. Almost Milibandian with the nod to German style investment banks:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blo ... itics-live" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He dismissed claims that his policies were too radical. Referring to his plans to set up a national investment bank to promote infrastructure improvements and innovation, he said:
It is not particularly radical to do a lot of what Germany has been doing for a very long time.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 22 Jul, 2015 2:01 pm

Richard Murphy
Tax Research
Technical support to Jeremy Corbyn
22 July 2015

A little unexpectedly I have been invited to attend a speech Jeremy Corbyn is giving this morning and to then sit on a panel afterwards to answer questions on three issues. These are, I understand, the tax gap, tax justice issues including those relating to corporate transparency, and what Jeremy calls People’s QE, and which I have previously called green infrastructure QE.

I must stress that I am not a member of the Labour Party and that I would also support other candidates if they wanted me to do so on issues where I had expertise to offer, but so far it seems as if it is only Jeremy who will be making the running on these issues. In that case I will be happy to answer the questions anyone attending wants to raise.

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2015 ... my-corbyn/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thank you, Richard Murphy.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Wed 22 Jul, 2015 2:05 pm

Hi there Robert!

I agree about "Blue Labour" btw. Anybody who wants that approach is probably best advised to vote for Andy - even if his flaws are pretty glaringly obvious.

(and Stella for deputy, x10000000)

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Wed 22 Jul, 2015 2:21 pm

Would it be too much to ask our Labour representatives

[a] To recognise the party has a broad church
That it shouldn't be too hard to accommodate the range of views when selecting a shadow cabinet
[c] That the left only looks extreme because the right are nearly out of sight.
[d] To bloody well pull their socks up.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Wed 22 Jul, 2015 2:21 pm

Willow904 wrote:Corbyn's economic speech all sounds rather reasonable. Almost Milibandian with the nod to German style investment banks:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blo ... itics-live" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
He dismissed claims that his policies were too radical. Referring to his plans to set up a national investment bank to promote infrastructure improvements and innovation, he said:
It is not particularly radical to do a lot of what Germany has been doing for a very long time.

It isn't. The £93bn figure, for example, is mainly made up of tax relief for capital depreciation. Good luck clawing that back.

It is the kind of stuff someone who has never been in government comes out with. The idea that Gordon Brown and Ed Balls were uninterested in eliminating tax avoidance is claptrap. The kind of thing only someone outside the mainstream of the Labour party could possibly believe. The truth is you can't do much better than we do now.

None of it bears scrutiny. That he has Murphy, a retired acocuntant and not an economist, as his wingman should also fill everyone sensible with dread.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Wed 22 Jul, 2015 2:39 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Hi there Robert!

I agree about "Blue Labour" btw. Anybody who wants that approach is probably best advised to vote for Andy - even if his flaws are pretty glaringly obvious.

(and Stella for deputy, x10000000)

I'll certainly be voting for Creasy, much easier choice for me than the leadership. I've never been taken with Tom Watson. I'm also swinging back to Burnham. Seeing the media whipping up the Corbyn story to try to engineer a fatal split within Labour has simply re-enforced my initial instinct which was that what Labour needs is to go with the obvious, popular choice that commands the most support amongst MPs and that's clearly Burnham. I saw an interesting tweet which said under Blair, he was a Blairite, under Brown a Brownite and under Miliband a Milibandite. I responded "so under Burnham he'll be himself?" He could surprise us all. The Tories clearly rated him enough to feel the need to try to smear him with the Mid-Staffs thing. If he can put that to bed it would give the whole party a boost. Labour is currently weighed down by lies from all sides. Getting behind Burnham and helping him put a few of those lies straight will give the party confidence that it can get its message out there again, untwisted by hostile voices.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Wed 22 Jul, 2015 2:51 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:
Willow904 wrote:Corbyn's economic speech all sounds rather reasonable. Almost Milibandian with the nod to German style investment banks:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blo ... itics-live" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
He dismissed claims that his policies were too radical. Referring to his plans to set up a national investment bank to promote infrastructure improvements and innovation, he said:
It is not particularly radical to do a lot of what Germany has been doing for a very long time.
It isn't. The £93bn figure, for example, is mainly made up of tax relief for capital depreciation. Good luck clawing that back.

It is the kind of stuff someone who has never been in government comes out with. The idea that Gordon Brown and Ed Balls were uninterested in eliminating tax avoidance is claptrap. The kind of thing only someone outside the mainstream of the Labour party could possibly believe. The truth is you can't do much better than we do now.

None of it bears scrutiny. That he has Murphy, a retired acocuntant and not an economist, as his wingman should also fill everyone sensible with dread.

It sounds reasonable, was my point.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 22 Jul, 2015 2:56 pm

@RobertSnozers
Wonderful to read you here again!

Labour just need to do their thing, one party, quarrelling amongst ourselves or not, hashing it out, staying together.
Tories do staying together well - they remain Tories* & vote Tory.

*Aside from minor deviations into UKIP, Tory leadership, supporters & voters remain Tory

I've had something on my mind for awhile now.
I can't fault someone for their just indignation over Labour leadership or policy they find offensive.
I can't fault someone leaving the Labour party over what they think right & the Labour party doing nonetheless.
I can't fault or demean in any way people who can't support Labour & I won't condemn or belittle anyone having done so.

I made a commitment to using non-violent conflict resolution with myself or others.
No matter the depths of my despair, if I'm sane, I don't have the option of taking my own life.
No matter how fearful or angry I get, I will not use violence hurting another person or group of people.

My commitment to non-violence & familial fidelity may be more to me than my commitment to the Labour party. Regardless, I haven't found my commitment to those three personal affirmations strained or in jeopardy of a breach. They all form part of what makes up the values, the meaning, of my life.

Don't leave the Labour party, please, regardless of what the Labour party decide to do.

I'm of the opinion this request & advice I'm giving everyone is controversial.
I'm convinced what's at stake are the lives of people & the well-being of environment, the land, the UK.
Using every lawful power available, current Tory government must be stymied until they're voted out of government - the sooner the better.
I look to the Labour party to provide just government.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Wed 22 Jul, 2015 2:59 pm

SpinningHugo wrote: It isn't. The £93bn figure, for example, is mainly made up of tax relief for capital depreciation. Good luck clawing that back.

Not according to the original article it isn't.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... -handshake" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Corporate tax benefits: £44bn Of the 93 major tax reliefs provided by the Treasury, 27 are aimed at business. The largest amount was spent allowing businesses to write off billions spent on plants, machinery and equipment among other items.

I agree that it is pointless highlighting this one since it is there to encourage investment in plant & machinery etc. But it isn't "written off" since there's an adjustment the other way for depreciation - all it does is defer payment.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Wed 22 Jul, 2015 3:11 pm

Here's what my old company has in its note to the accounts on Deferred tax:

Deferred tax is calculated on temporary differences arising between the carrying amount of assets and liabilities for accounting purposes and their respective tax values. Deferred tax liabilities arise where the carrying amount is higher than the tax value (more tax deduction has been taken). This can happen where we invest in capital assets, as governments often encourage investment by allowing tax depreciation to be recognised faster than accounting depreciation. This reduces the tax value of the asset relative to its carrying amount. Deferred tax liabilities are generally provided on all taxable temporary differences. Deferred tax assets arise where the carrying amount is lower than the tax value (less tax benefit has been taken). This can happen where we have trading losses, which cannot be offset in the current period but can be carried forward and we consider it probable that we will be able to offset the losses against future taxable profits.

I could explain further with a worked example but you'd be bored very quickly so won't...

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Wed 22 Jul, 2015 3:11 pm

RogerOThornhill wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote: It isn't. The £93bn figure, for example, is mainly made up of tax relief for capital depreciation. Good luck clawing that back.

Not according to the original article it isn't.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... -handshake" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Corporate tax benefits: £44bn Of the 93 major tax reliefs provided by the Treasury, 27 are aimed at business. The largest amount was spent allowing businesses to write off billions spent on plants, machinery and equipment among other items.
I agree that it is pointless highlighting this one since it is there to encourage investment in plant & machinery etc. But it isn't "written off" since there's an adjustment the other way for depreciation - all it does is defer payment.

The original piece is nonsense. (I knew the source, which is just rubbish).

Say you spend £10m on a fleet of lorries. At that point you no longer have £10m cash but you have £10m worth of lorries. You then use them.

Each year you use those lorries they will decline in value. Lorries have a commercial life of, say, 5 years. After that time they will have scrap vaue of say £100,000.

The capital is depreciating in value. That is an expense like any other. We tax companies on profits. That means you must deduct expenses. That means you must deduct the annual capital value depreciation of the lorries.

The idea that this is a loophole or a 'corporate tax benefit' was the Guardian at its most laughable.

And now we have a man who is 5/2 to be leader of the opposition endorsing this nonsense.

Oh, and it is nothing whatsoever to do with 'deferring payment'. It is an allowable loss, not a tax deferral.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Wed 22 Jul, 2015 3:14 pm

@SpinningHugo

I know how this stuff works...I used to do this i.e. tax calcs for large division of a FTSE 100, for a living...

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Wed 22 Jul, 2015 3:21 pm

RogerOThornhill wrote:@SpinningHugo

I know how this stuff works...I used to do this i.e. tax calcs for large division of a FTSE 100, for a living...

Ok, but that £44bn figure is ALL capital depreciation.

The other big ticket item is aviation fuel: something we can do nothing about without international agreement.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Wed 22 Jul, 2015 3:22 pm

RogerOThornhill wrote:@SpinningHugo

I know how this stuff works...I used to do this i.e. tax calcs for large division of a FTSE 100, for a living...

Ok, but that £44bn figure is ALL capital depreciation.

The other big ticket item is aviation fuel: something we can do nothing about without international agreement.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 22 Jul, 2015 3:26 pm

http://www.theguardian.com/housing-netw ... are_btn_tw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What is the government’s five-year vision for social housing?

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 22 Jul, 2015 3:29 pm

http://loopys-rollingwiththepunches.blo ... lfare.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Defining sickness in welfare

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 22 Jul, 2015 3:35 pm

Richard Murphy
Tax Research
22 July 2015

I mentioned earlier this morning that I had been asked to make comment after a speech Jeremy Corbyn gave on the economy this morning. I prepared some notes but, as usual at such things, did not flow as I expected...

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2015 ... olitician/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Post Jeremy Corbyn speech on the economy posted a few hours ago.

Edited to add an extract from his notes:

"People’s QE fundamentally changes all that. It is QE because it would be new money pumped into the economy as a result of the Bank of England buying back bonds, but in this case they’d be what are effectively new bonds created by a government owned investment bank that would have the aim of funding new housing, infrastructure, sustainable technology and so much more that would guarantee jobs in every constituency in the UK and long term careers and opportunities for so many who need them."

- Richard Murphy
Tax Research
22 July 2015

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Wed 22 Jul, 2015 3:42 pm

RogerOThornhill wrote:I would also point out that although there was no separate National Insurance Fund as in a separate bank account, it was used to keep check on whether NI contributions were at a level to keep pace with pensions being paid out - actuarial valuation etc. I would imagine the aging population was why NI rates started to creep up (one of those stealth taxes the right moan about but which is actually quite sensible).

Get rid of NI as a separate entity and the calculation as to whether we're paying enough goes too.

Mind you, if they wanted to move to a position of people managing their own pension completely, then ditching NI wouldn't be an issue...I know...don't give them ideas.

They may already have had that idea ... we've just had the leak about IDS wanting people to set up savings accounts to cover periods of sickness and unemployment ... that and moving people entirely onto individual pension accounts would fit very nicely with ditching NI. And plenty of new financial 'products' for their buddies to flog to us and make lots of commission.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Wed 22 Jul, 2015 3:43 pm

I'm left leaning but not hard left. Still not sure how or even if I'll vote.

We vote for MPs we think/hope/expect to work for and represent us.

If there is a groundswell of the left, then surely those who are hoping to be elected who lean to the right, should admit that their remit needs to be adjusted if not broadened?

To me they're coming across as contemptuous of anyone's opinions bar their own, and that, for me and I suspect many others, translates to 'in it for what they can get out of it even if it's just for the glory.

I never felt that about Ed and don't about Corbyn.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Wed 22 Jul, 2015 3:44 pm

And welcome back Robert Snozer. Hope you will be staying awhile.

We haven't completely descended into fighting like ferrets in a sack ... FTN s generally much more civilised than that - but we have had our moments. The times make it very difficult to keep positive and balanced ... the media makes it even harder.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 22 Jul, 2015 3:46 pm

Apologies - another extract - I don't always have time to make it all the excellent links posted here at FTN - I'm posting another important bit from Murphy's website linked below because of it's clarity, honesty & value - I won't do it all the time but this is important:

"The choice as to which QE you pursue is, like the tax gap you believe in or the demand you make of multinational corporations when it comes to transparency, essentially political.
I will leave that political judgment to Jeremy.
I am not a politician. But I can say...

...if anyone wants to promote jobs and business in this country then there is no better way of doing so right now than People’s QE. You just have to believe that if we could create £375 billion for banks between 2009 and 2012 then it is worth creating a lot less now to deliver growth, jobs, prosperity, hope and a future for people in this country."

- Richard Murphy
Tax Research
22 July 2015

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2015 ... olitician/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Wed 22 Jul, 2015 3:46 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
RogerOThornhill wrote:I would also point out that although there was no separate National Insurance Fund as in a separate bank account, it was used to keep check on whether NI contributions were at a level to keep pace with pensions being paid out - actuarial valuation etc. I would imagine the aging population was why NI rates started to creep up (one of those stealth taxes the right moan about but which is actually quite sensible).

Get rid of NI as a separate entity and the calculation as to whether we're paying enough goes too.

Mind you, if they wanted to move to a position of people managing their own pension completely, then ditching NI wouldn't be an issue...I know...don't give them ideas.

They may already have had that idea ... we've just had the leak about IDS wanting people to set up savings accounts to cover periods of sickness and unemployment ... that and moving people entirely onto individual pension accounts would fit very nicely with ditching NI. And plenty of new financial 'products' for their buddies to flog to us and make lots of commission.

More and more I'm thinking I'm glad me and Mr Ohso won't have to suffer many more years of it.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Wed 22 Jul, 2015 3:47 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
RogerOThornhill wrote:I would also point out that although there was no separate National Insurance Fund as in a separate bank account, it was used to keep check on whether NI contributions were at a level to keep pace with pensions being paid out - actuarial valuation etc. I would imagine the aging population was why NI rates started to creep up (one of those stealth taxes the right moan about but which is actually quite sensible).

Get rid of NI as a separate entity and the calculation as to whether we're paying enough goes too.

Mind you, if they wanted to move to a position of people managing their own pension completely, then ditching NI wouldn't be an issue...I know...don't give them ideas.

They may already have had that idea ... we've just had the leak about IDS wanting people to set up savings accounts to cover periods of sickness and unemployment ... that and moving people entirely onto individual pension accounts would fit very nicely with ditching NI. And plenty of new financial 'products' for their buddies to flog to us and make lots of commission.

Yes, you can just picture the headlines in 20 years time about a pension mis-selling scandal...on a huge scale.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Wed 22 Jul, 2015 4:03 pm

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.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Wed 22 Jul, 2015 4:04 pm

A nice and early example, which I had forgotten if I ever knew it, of how the 'rightwing' trade unions used to control the 'leftwing' party membership

Bevin and Lansbury

http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2014/01/02/la ... y-history/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

(Ignore that it comes from labour uncut, it is well done).

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 22 Jul, 2015 4:07 pm

ohsocynical wrote:I'm left leaning but not hard left. Still not sure how or even if I'll vote.

We vote for MPs we think/hope/expect to work for and represent us.

If there is a groundswell of the left, then surely those who are hoping to be elected who lean to the right, should admit that their remit needs to be adjusted if not broadened?

To me they're coming across as contemptuous of anyone's opinions bar their own, and that, for me and I suspect many others, translates to 'in it for what they can get out of it even if it's just for the glory.

I never felt that about Ed and don't about Corbyn.

Labour MPs could save themselves & everyone else a lot of time by forgoing the glory chase.
Labour MPs will get lots of glory, I can almost promise them & everyone else that, by doing the Labour party thing, socialist policies even the last Labour packed into over decade of Labour leadership.
Simplicity, decency, keep communication open, be honest & never slander your team mates - mainstream media belongs to mostly non-Labour supporters, so forget about the camera, it'll never flatter Labour.
Be yourselves, what the hell.
It'll save time, money & stress.
A loss of hope among the Labour supporting electorate leads to that electorate not registering & turning up to vote Labour.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Wed 22 Jul, 2015 4:07 pm

Does anyone else agree that Ed would have cleverly steered the party through Osborne's machinations?

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Wed 22 Jul, 2015 4:09 pm

RogerOThornhill wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:
RogerOThornhill wrote:I would also point out that although there was no separate National Insurance Fund as in a separate bank account, it was used to keep check on whether NI contributions were at a level to keep pace with pensions being paid out - actuarial valuation etc. I would imagine the aging population was why NI rates started to creep up (one of those stealth taxes the right moan about but which is actually quite sensible).

Get rid of NI as a separate entity and the calculation as to whether we're paying enough goes too.

Mind you, if they wanted to move to a position of people managing their own pension completely, then ditching NI wouldn't be an issue...I know...don't give them ideas.

They may already have had that idea ... we've just had the leak about IDS wanting people to set up savings accounts to cover periods of sickness and unemployment ... that and moving people entirely onto individual pension accounts would fit very nicely with ditching NI. And plenty of new financial 'products' for their buddies to flog to us and make lots of commission.
Yes, you can just picture the headlines in 20 years time about a pension mis-selling scandal...on a huge scale.

There were enough sane Republicans to stop them privatizing pensions when they held all 3 branches of government to 2006.

I think that's probably beyond the political pale in Britain.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 22 Jul, 2015 4:09 pm

ohsocynical wrote:Does anyone else agree that Ed would have cleverly steered the party through Osborne's machinations?

Probably, he would have used the capabilities of his entire team.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Wed 22 Jul, 2015 4:19 pm

How will government subsidy cuts impact the UK's solar industry?
The government has laid its cuts to green subsidies on the table. What do they mean for the UK’s solar industry and how much will they really save households on their energy bills?
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... r-industry" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This stands out:

... the cuts take aim at companies, communities and small landholders who want to invest in a medium array and become significant contributors to the grid.

Rudd said the changes were “protecting existing investment”. But Leo Murray, from community renewable energy advocates 10:10, said the announcement amounted to a “full frontal attack on renewable energy in the UK”.

Community-owned projects, which tend to be smaller than 5MW, will be hardest hit by the unexpectedly harsh changes. Murray said that erstwhile fracking village Balcombe’s bid to go 100% solar may just slip in before the April 2016 deadline for ROC changes.

“But it won’t be possible for any other community energy groups to follow in their footsteps,” he said...

and from BTL:

Watkin M 2h ago
Murray said that erstwhile fracking village Balcombe’s bid to go 100% solar may just slip in before the April 2016 deadline for ROC changes.

I hope Balcombe get there in time. But killing off the community sector is surely the point of this excerise. Villages like Balcombe prove that it is feasible for communities to abandon fossil fuels, at least for electricity generation. And that they can do so quickly and with minimal government support.

Balcombe is in danger of setting a good example, albeit a small one. That the government has to crush even token steps forward is a sure sign of its desperation. It is now clear that they will go to any lengths, including crippling economic development, to protect the profits of their freinds in the fossil fuel industry. These people are a danger to us all.

We are moving backwards very fast under this lot. I wonder what this will do to the economies and future investment potential of Scotland and Wales given both countries want to develop renewable energies and related sectors.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 22 Jul, 2015 4:22 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
RogerOThornhill wrote:I would also point out that although there was no separate National Insurance Fund as in a separate bank account, it was used to keep check on whether NI contributions were at a level to keep pace with pensions being paid out - actuarial valuation etc. I would imagine the aging population was why NI rates started to creep up (one of those stealth taxes the right moan about but which is actually quite sensible).

Get rid of NI as a separate entity and the calculation as to whether we're paying enough goes too.

Mind you, if they wanted to move to a position of people managing their own pension completely, then ditching NI wouldn't be an issue...I know...don't give them ideas.

They may already have had that idea ... we've just had the leak about IDS wanting people to set up savings accounts to cover periods of sickness and unemployment ... that and moving people entirely onto individual pension accounts would fit very nicely with ditching NI. And plenty of new financial 'products' for their buddies to flog to us and make lots of commission.

Yes - Tory-led government last five years toyed with changing the name National Insurance (NI) to "Income Tax" to psychologically break further the idea of collective contributory social security. Now the little Tory majority government decide to chuck it altogether.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 22 Jul, 2015 4:28 pm

http://www.parliament.uk/business/commi ... ery-15-16/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Work and Pensions Committee is holding an inquiry into the timeliness and accuracy of benefit delivery by the DWP. Potential problems that can arise when benefits are delayed or underpaid include people resorting to food banks for emergency food rations.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Wed 22 Jul, 2015 4:31 pm

HindleA wrote:http://www.parliament.uk/business/commi ... ery-15-16/

The Work and Pensions Committee is holding an inquiry into the timeliness and accuracy of benefit delivery by the DWP. Potential problems that can arise when benefits are delayed or underpaid include people resorting to food banks for emergency food rations.

How long overdue is this? I want to welcome it wholeheartedly but find myself fuming furious about it at the same time.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 22 Jul, 2015 4:31 pm

ohsocynical wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:
RogerOThornhill wrote:I would also point out that although there was no separate National Insurance Fund as in a separate bank account, it was used to keep check on whether NI contributions were at a level to keep pace with pensions being paid out - actuarial valuation etc. I would imagine the aging population was why NI rates started to creep up (one of those stealth taxes the right moan about but which is actually quite sensible).

Get rid of NI as a separate entity and the calculation as to whether we're paying enough goes too.

Mind you, if they wanted to move to a position of people managing their own pension completely, then ditching NI wouldn't be an issue...I know...don't give them ideas.

They may already have had that idea ... we've just had the leak about IDS wanting people to set up savings accounts to cover periods of sickness and unemployment ... that and moving people entirely onto individual pension accounts would fit very nicely with ditching NI. And plenty of new financial 'products' for their buddies to flog to us and make lots of commission.
More and more I'm thinking I'm glad me and Mr Ohso won't have to suffer many more years of it.

I'm glad none of us will suffer many more years of Tory government.
I look forward to better leadership soon.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Wed 22 Jul, 2015 4:33 pm

ohsocynical wrote:Does anyone else agree that Ed would have cleverly steered the party through Osborne's machinations?

The 2010 version of Harman would have, tbf - her behaviour this time round was bizarre and incomprehensible.

To R Snozers and others, HH is the one who should bear the brunt of your displeasure - she put Burnham and Cooper especially in pretty much a no-win situation.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 22 Jul, 2015 4:41 pm

http://touchstoneblog.org.uk/2015/07/co ... 0w.twitter" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Counting the cost of the tax credit changes

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Wed 22 Jul, 2015 4:43 pm

It's also daft to moan about business subsidies in isolation, without looking at what they do in terms of output.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Wed 22 Jul, 2015 5:11 pm

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.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 22 Jul, 2015 5:12 pm

The National Audit Office (NAO) report out today.
More work piled onto the Commission for Quality Care (CQC), social care inspections unit - they don't have the staff, experience or access to data necessary for making sure private (& public) sector care homes are safe, economically viable or even currently operational but are tasked with the job nonetheless.
Who's going to pay for all this, I wonder?

Capacity and capability to regulate the quality and safety of health and adult social care
The CQC, the independent regulator of health and adult social care in England, has made substantial progress but needs to recruit and train staff and build a new organisational culture.

...there are not yet enough people to carry out all the Commission’s work. The Commission predicts that, when at full complement, a third of staff will have been in post for less than 12 months, and existing staff have experienced significant changes. The Commission deferred target dates for inspecting providers owing to staff shortages.

In addition, from April 2015, the Department [government] gave the Commission [CQC] new responsibilities to oversee the financial sustainability of the largest adult social care providers. The Commission must now notify relevant local authorities if it considers any of the 43 largest adult social care providers is at risk of exiting the market. It began overseeing these providers, however, before having in-house expertise fully in place. It was also announced in June 2015 that the Commission would assess the financial efficiency of hospital trusts.

- Amyas Morse, head of the National Audit Office, 22 July 2015

http://www.nao.org.uk/report/capacity-a ... cial-care/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Department should not add to the Commission’s responsibilities and workload
without assessing the impact on its existing capability. The Commission is still
in the third year of its change programme, and it is building staff numbers and
skills for its existing functions. In April 2015, it took on additional responsibilities,
demanding new expertise, for market oversight of adult social care providers.
The Department has now asked it to build additional capability for assessing
the efficiency of hospitals. There is a risk that the demands of quickly meeting
successive new responsibilities will undermine progress the Commission is
making to strengthen its ability to regulate care quality.

- Amyas Morse, head of the National Audit Office, 22 July 2015

http://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/upload ... ummary.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Wed 22 Jul, 2015 5:12 pm

I keep reading about Foot and Kinnock and about them being too left wing to make the party electable, which infers Corbyn is too.

I reckon by 2015 times are going to be so hard for a great portion of the country, that Labour could well be a likely alternative.

Back then, the unions playing up caused my dad to really stop and think about where to put his vote. He felt the Labour movement had gone too far. He wasn't comfortable with it. I guess the press played the negative points pretty much as they do now, but there were some horror stories that have tainted Labour's reputation to this day.

It won't be the same in 2015. GB is going to be a drastically different place, especially if there's a housing crash.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Wed 22 Jul, 2015 5:24 pm

On the whole Blair speech thing.

Great style but really no substance. Amusingly like all politicians who don't understand technology he seems to think automation and the internet of things will transform things like the NHS. I have heard similar sentiments from clueless CEOs and Engineering Directors.

These are people for whom the concepts of calibration, safety critical, certification, reliability clearly have no meaning.

How do you make a $99 part cost $99,000?

Answer: Put it on an aircraft.

The same will apply to the NHS.

Amusingly Corbyn seems to have fallen for a similar bit of spin. I just think it shows politicians need to think they have discovered a simple solution to complex problems (they haven't of course).

I also agree with RS, the lack of non ideological analysis of the 2015 election defeat is depressing. My vote goes to anybody who can simultaneously solve the issue of the SNP and UKIP without alienating 2015 ex lib Dems who voted Tory to keep the SNP out.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Wed 22 Jul, 2015 5:24 pm

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).

See

http://waitingfortax.com/2015/07/22/jer ... ome-maths/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Wed 22 Jul, 2015 5:28 pm

ohsocynical wrote:I keep reading about Foot and Kinnock and about them being too left wing to make the party electable, which infers Corbyn is too.

I reckon by 2015 times are going to be so hard for a great portion of the country, that Labour could well be a likely alternative.

Back then, the unions playing up caused my dad to really stop and think about where to put his vote. He felt the Labour movement had gone too far. He wasn't comfortable with it. I guess the press played the negative points pretty much as they do now, but there were some horror stories that have tainted Labour's reputation to this day.

It won't be the same in 2015. GB is going to be a drastically different place, especially if there's a housing crash.

Kinnock was totally different to Foot. After being routinely humiliated by trying to square the circle of being a strong leader while offering to undermine NATO by ditching our nukes he booted CND saying never again.

His problem was he never managed to get away from that 87 manifesto in 92, to be fair he would probably have beaten Thatcher. To a degree the 92 defeat could also be pointed at John Smith who was proposing huge tax hikes when people were desperately struggling to hang onto their houses.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 22 Jul, 2015 5:32 pm

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.

Richard Murphy writes exactly what you've written above, the "tax gap" figures depend upon who's compiling them.
From Murphy's website linked below:

Richard Murphy:
The National Audit Office, the tax gap, HMRC and ‘other estimates’
"The tax gap is inherently difficult to estimate and HMRC acknowledges that no estimate of the tax gap can be definitive and that its estimates carry a degree of uncertainty."
They add:
"Around two-thirds of the tax gap is estimated using established methodologies, with the remainder estimated using developing and experimental methodologies."
And:
"HMRC is not able to estimate the scale of uncertainty around its best estimate of the tax gap. For around 60% of the value of the tax gap, it has not made any estimate of the scale of uncertainty."
Murphy continues:
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?

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2015 ... estimates/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;