Wednesday 22nd July 2015

Post by **refitman** » Wed 22 Jul, 2015 7:11 am

Morning all.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Wed 22 Jul, 2015 8:40 am

Good morfternoon.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Wed 22 Jul, 2015 8:55 am

Morning.

Yay - just listened to the Chief Vet for Wales - Christiana Glossop - putting Radio 4 interviewer (Sarah Montague I believe) straight in a very firm way. She had to tell her to 'stop fixating on badgers' re bovine TB. This is music to my ears. Glossop had to reiterate several times that the good results in reducing bovine TB in Wales are a result of a comprehensive programme of enhanced cattle measures and working with farmers on biosecurity and as part of that biosecurity trying to reduce the possibility of contact between cattle and badgers. All Montague could keep asking about was what results of vaccinating badgers were showing ... they won't bloody show anything re cattle TB you numpty because it hasn't been set up to measure that (our area was converted to a vaccination programme from a culling proposal) - there were no scientific baselines / control groups established for vaccination and there are too many variables. It is aiming to reduce the incidence of bovine TB in badgers - but without actual advance testing of badgers in the area pre vaccination and post vaccination - it relies on modelling of existing prevalence - so even that result won't be irrefutable.

I despair of the lack of basic preparation by interviewers on subjects such as this. Montague sounded stupid - even the guy from the NFU was having to tread a very careful line because of her erroneous assumptions about and fixation with badgers.

mikems · Post by **mikems** » Wed 22 Jul, 2015 9:04 am

The rising anti-Corbyn panic is interesting...Blair's been wheeled out...which should convince bundles of left-wingers to ditch Jeremy, no problem at all.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Wed 22 Jul, 2015 9:07 am

To save everybody listening to Blair's bullshit here is what he will say.

Blah blah blah - centre ground
Blah blah blah - don't turn to the left.
Blah blah blah - grovel to big business.
Blah blah blah - be like the Tories.
Blah blah blah - I won elections.
Blah blah blah - back to the 90s.
Blah blah blah - thanks, I am off to provide some more consultancy on PR to murderous dictators.

What he won't mention:

The SNP and the loss of voters to the left, dealing with the Greens, Iraq, the fact he was blessed with an incredibly fortuitous set of circumstances. The fact he utterly failed in Palestine, the fact he has no present grip on reality as he spends his time surrounded by rich sycophants while working for murderous dictators.

Not that Blair shouldn't have an opinion and to be fair to him he behaved very well most of the time in the Miliband years (eventually). But why his opinion has any real value, and why the media is so obsessed with him is a mystery.

His election winning formula wouldn't work today.

mikems · Post by **mikems** » Wed 22 Jul, 2015 9:09 am

Labour leaders with links to murderous dictators are exactly the sort of people our rulers think should be running the Labour party.

Blair is 'one of us' in their terms.

Post by **refitman** » Wed 22 Jul, 2015 9:10 am

And now Sparrow's blog is now full of "Bliar", "war criminal" etc... Another thing to blame Tony for.

mikems · Post by **mikems** » Wed 22 Jul, 2015 9:13 am

Michael Foot being mentioned a lot, as if it is axiomatic that all left-wingers are going to lose. But, of course, Foot lost because the right of the party split away and formed the SDP. Can they do that trick again, now, does anyone think? Perhaps they could link up with Tim Farron and his chums and keep the tories in power for twenty years of so. Seats in the Lords at the end of it.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Wed 22 Jul, 2015 9:14 am

mikems wrote:The rising anti-Corbyn panic is interesting...Blair's been wheeled out...which should convince bundles of left-wingers to ditch Jeremy, no problem at all.

The rising Corbyn panic is understandable, he is unelectable and being popular with activists is not the same as being a popular leader.

However unless Labour really have been compromised by Tories (ironic given the efforts to stop Militant doing the same thing in the 80s), Corbyn is still unlikely to win.

The last time Labour did this we got Michael Foot, a party split, the SDP and four terms of Tory government.

Labour really should pass an emergency motion invalidating any new supporters signed up since June. This is the future of our democracy and they have no way of validating the supporters are genuine.

mikems · Post by **mikems** » Wed 22 Jul, 2015 9:15 am

Also Labour is unlikely to win the next election in any case, regardless of the leader, simply from the arithmetic. So we shouldn't just be thinking short-term, or we will have to go through all this again next time, barring an unlikely victory.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Wed 22 Jul, 2015 9:16 am

dominic dyer ‏@domdyer70 20h20 hours ago
Chancellor expects DEFRA to make further budget cuts of between 25 to 40% no way Liz Truss fund extension of badger cull no money left

The only good (ish) result I can so far pick out of Osborne's desire to savage public spending. Was a bit stunned to see John McTernan on Newsnight last night talking about radical options for efficiency savings and what they might be ... scrapping Defra entirely was one of the ideas he put out there. He was basically saying Osborne and co are doing the worst re cutting by constant salami slicing rather than working out radical strategies to get real efficiences by doing things entirely differently.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Wed 22 Jul, 2015 9:16 am

Morning all.

So it's moderate, modern and centre left Progress and Blair versus left wing populist protest Corbyn. Interesting times now and ahead.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Wed 22 Jul, 2015 9:18 am

mikems wrote:Michael Foot being mentioned a lot, as if it is axiomatic that all left-wingers are going to lose. But, of course, Foot lost because the right of the party split away and formed the SDP. Can they do that trick again, now, does anyone think? Perhaps they could link up with Tim Farron and his chums and keep the tories in power for twenty years of so. Seats in the Lords at the end of it.

No, Foot lost because he was an organisational and presentational shambles, because his policies were so out of tune with the population he was doomed.

It was called the longest suicide note in history for a reason. I lived through it, nice man (I was lucky enough to meet him years later), should never have been leader.

Yes the right of the party could join the Lib Dems, all they need to do is cross the floor. I doubt they will have the honour to force a by-election (and if they did Labour would probably lose).

mikems · Post by **mikems** » Wed 22 Jul, 2015 9:19 am

Miliband was 'unelectable', if by that you mean he lost an election. Corbyn is currently leading the polling, so is not 'unelectable' to Labour party members and supporters, who are the ones voting now.

These new voting rules were introduced only a year or so ago in order to weaken the left in the party, and reduce the supposed influence of the union leaders. Perhaps if Corbyn wins, that argument will be put to bed, at least. But, that's the case - this election was supposed to favour the right, but they are so bankrupt in the eyes of party members and supporters, they cannot win it.

mikems · Post by **mikems** » Wed 22 Jul, 2015 9:21 am

No, Foot lost because he was an organisational and presentational shambles, because his policies were so out of tune with the population he was doomed.

That's an opinion, of course. Not an accepted fact we can all work with.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Wed 22 Jul, 2015 9:21 am

mikems wrote:Also Labour is unlikely to win the next election in any case, regardless of the leader, simply from the arithmetic. So we shouldn't just be thinking short-term, or we will have to go through all this again next time, barring an unlikely victory.

There is a difference between not winning and getting utterly hammered. 83 nearly finished the party, 87 was a huge victory because they finished second not third.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Wed 22 Jul, 2015 9:22 am

mikems wrote:
No, Foot lost because he was an organisational and presentational shambles, because his policies were so out of tune with the population he was doomed.
That's an opinion, of course. Not an accepted fact we can all work with.

It is just as valid as your opinion, with the added benefit that I was alive and politically active at the time.

mikems · Post by **mikems** » Wed 22 Jul, 2015 9:23 am

I'm not actually looking for a fight, here.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Wed 22 Jul, 2015 9:45 am

Paul Waugh ✔@paulwaugh
Possibly the Blair line that will grab the headlines most: "People who say their heart is with Corbyn, get a transplant".

That's me then ! My heart is with Corbyn, but my mind/vote is with someone else.
Probably, with a heavy heart, Yvette Cooper.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Wed 22 Jul, 2015 9:47 am

Warning for Blair-phobics.
When logging onto the Guardian live blog Blair's audio is being streamed automatically.
Can't see where to switch it off.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Wed 22 Jul, 2015 10:09 am

Corbyn now 5/2 second favourite.

http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/bri ... our-leader" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Wed 22 Jul, 2015 10:20 am

SpinningHugo wrote:Corbyn now 5/2 second favourite.

http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/bri ... our-leader" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Interesting to hear that Corbyn is relatively high on second preferences in the YouGov poll. Marmite like Kendall he is not.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Wed 22 Jul, 2015 10:24 am

Blair proving more enjoyable than expected:

Blair says the SNP are reactionary and describes nationalism as a “caveman” ideology.

That'll get a few reactions, I suspect!

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Wed 22 Jul, 2015 10:24 am

Watch: The short walk that Rob Wilson MP claimed 13p travel expenses for

http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/local- ... on-9698152

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Wed 22 Jul, 2015 10:47 am

Blair says he does not believe the claims about Labour being out of power for ever. That reminds him of what people used to say about Labour, old Economist covers, he says.

He says politics does not work like that.

And he says the Tories are going to start getting “cocky”.

A sentiment a few of us here have also expressed. Also notice that what he says about the direction of Labour is layered with what Kendall in particular, but all the leadership contenders a bit, seem to be missing - optimism.

This is essentially what I liked about Tristram Hunt. Much as it irks me to say it, Hunt, like Blair, has that confidence and self-belief that only a public school education seems to endow.

I think attacking Corbyn is a mistake, however. The party as a whole could learn a huge amount about presentation and persuasion from him. In that sense his abilities are an asset to the party. He is a very experienced debater and it is that talent that is drawing support. A broad church Labour party that has a place for Corbyn in it is exactly the kind of widening of the party's appeal that is needed, isn't it? I think the party as a whole need to rally around him a little, in the way they have rallied round Kendall to a degree to emphasise that these are all points of view within Labour as a whole and all these views are welcome. The media is pushing for a split, building Corbyn up as some sort of "other" that will destroy the Labour party. I was very disappointed when Burnham backtracked on the potential of including Corbyn within the Labour frontbench team. I felt indicating that although Corbyn might not be leadership material, with his lack of shadow cabinet experience, that his contribution is still valued would have been a good move but hey ho...I keep forgetting about those flighty Tory switchers that are so easily spooked by anything that remotely resembles proper socialist principles. What do I know?

mikems · Post by **mikems** » Wed 22 Jul, 2015 10:48 am

The '83 manifesto was not as left-wing as Wilson's in '74. Describing it as 'the longest suicide note in history' and as some sort of historical defeat of socialism is hyping the facts beyond what they can bear, in my opinion.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Wed 22 Jul, 2015 11:13 am

If the "Blairites" (shorthand) had any sense, they would ditch Tony Blair as their figurehead, and plough their furrow without reference to him. If they can't see the damage caused by their continually wheeling him out and, by implication, saying "Tony Blair is the best we can come up with" then they are being really rather stupid. Even those who once thought that he was wonderful must surely recognise that times have changed. They are behaving in a way that goes contrary to everything that they keep saying that they (and saying that their opponents in Labour don't) stand for by continually looking backwards (and quite a long way backwards, now).

So-called "Progress" is stuck in the past.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Wed 22 Jul, 2015 11:14 am

If the "Blairites" (shorthand) had any sense, they would ditch Tony Blair as their figurehead, and plough their furrow without reference to him. If they can't see the damage caused by their continually wheeling him out and, by implication, saying "Tony Blair is the best we can come up with" then they are being really rather stupid. Even those who once thought that he was wonderful must surely recognise that times have changed. They are behaving in a way that goes contrary to everything that they keep saying that they (and saying that their opponents in Labour don't) stand for by continually looking backwards (and quite a long way backwards, now).

So-called "Progress" is stuck in the past.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Wed 22 Jul, 2015 11:15 am

Sorry about that. Mystery.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Wed 22 Jul, 2015 11:20 am

mikems wrote:The '83 manifesto was not as left-wing as Wilson's in '74. Describing it as 'the longest suicide note in history' and as some sort of historical defeat of socialism is hyping the facts beyond what they can bear, in my opinion.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think the 74 manifesto called for unilateral nuclear disarmament. Nor did it call for withdrawal from the EEC. Nor did it call for direct control of the banks. 83 did.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Wed 22 Jul, 2015 11:25 am

PorFavor wrote:If the "Blairites" (shorthand) had any sense, they would ditch Tony Blair as their figurehead, and plough their furrow without reference to him. If they can't see the damage caused by their continually wheeling him out and, by implication, saying "Tony Blair is the best we can come up with" then they are being really rather stupid. Even those who once thought that he was wonderful must surely recognise that times have changed. They are behaving in a way that goes contrary to everything that they keep saying that they (and saying that their opponents in Labour don't) stand for by continually looking backwards (and quite a long way backwards, now).

So-called "Progress" is stuck in the past.

I don't think they do 'wheel him out'.

In 2010 Blair made no intervention as it would not have helped his preferred candidate. Today it is clear that the candidate he (and I) would prefer is going to lose, and so it makes no difference.

It is certainly true that the right of the party needs a figurehead who we can persuade the rest of the party to elect them. I had hoped Kendall would be that person, but it seems not.

Given that yesterday's poll was carried out before the Welfare Bill fiasco, and that the Corbyn-ite ultras tend to be more committed than those determined to elect Burnham (are there such people?) my current fear is that it understated Corbyn's strength.

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?

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Wed 22 Jul, 2015 11:34 am

SpinningHugo wrote:
PorFavor wrote:If the "Blairites" (shorthand) had any sense, they would ditch Tony Blair as their figurehead, and plough their furrow without reference to him. If they can't see the damage caused by their continually wheeling him out and, by implication, saying "Tony Blair is the best we can come up with" then they are being really rather stupid. Even those who once thought that he was wonderful must surely recognise that times have changed. They are behaving in a way that goes contrary to everything that they keep saying that they (and saying that their opponents in Labour don't) stand for by continually looking backwards (and quite a long way backwards, now).

So-called "Progress" is stuck in the past.

I don't think they do 'wheel him out'.

I

Well, they certainly don't say, "Thanks. But no thanks. We've moved on."

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Wed 22 Jul, 2015 11:37 am

mikems wrote:The '83 manifesto was not as left-wing as Wilson's in '74. Describing it as 'the longest suicide note in history' and as some sort of historical defeat of socialism is hyping the facts beyond what they can bear, in my opinion.

But it was *percieved* as such.

My formative years were the 1980s - there were literally *loads* of people on the doorstep then saying they wouldn't vote Labour because they were "too left wing/extreme".

Interestingly, there were very few saying that earlier this year - that wasn't the main reason Labour lost and it is Kendall mistakenly thinking it was which is a major reason why her campaign is crashing and burning (despite the almost wall to wall MSM adoration)

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Wed 22 Jul, 2015 11:48 am

SpinningHugo wrote:
PorFavor wrote:If the "Blairites" (shorthand) had any sense, they would ditch Tony Blair as their figurehead, and plough their furrow without reference to him. If they can't see the damage caused by their continually wheeling him out and, by implication, saying "Tony Blair is the best we can come up with" then they are being really rather stupid. Even those who once thought that he was wonderful must surely recognise that times have changed. They are behaving in a way that goes contrary to everything that they keep saying that they (and saying that their opponents in Labour don't) stand for by continually looking backwards (and quite a long way backwards, now).

So-called "Progress" is stuck in the past.

I don't think they do 'wheel him out'.

In 2010 Blair made no intervention as it would not have helped his preferred candidate. Today it is clear that the candidate he (and I) would prefer is going to lose, and so it makes no difference.

It is certainly true that the right of the party needs a figurehead who we can persuade the rest of the party to elect them. I had hoped Kendall would be that person, but it seems not.

Given that yesterday's poll was carried out before the Welfare Bill fiasco, and that the Corbyn-ite ultras tend to be more committed than those determined to elect Burnham (are there such people?) my current fear is that it understated Corbyn's strength.

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?

I did a Yougov poll about the Labour leadership, I don't know if it was the one quoted. I said "don't know" for who I would elect leader. There were 20% " don't knows" in the published poll, I believe. There was also a question about likelihood to vote. I wonder if Corbyn's supporters came out higher on likelihood to vote? I may look for the details on this poll as the media seem keen on the Corbyn ahead, Labour gone mad, narrative. They may be stretching the data to fit a story to suit them.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Wed 22 Jul, 2015 11:50 am

Willow904 wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:
PorFavor wrote:If the "Blairites" (shorthand) had any sense, they would ditch Tony Blair as their figurehead, and plough their furrow without reference to him. If they can't see the damage caused by their continually wheeling him out and, by implication, saying "Tony Blair is the best we can come up with" then they are being really rather stupid. Even those who once thought that he was wonderful must surely recognise that times have changed. They are behaving in a way that goes contrary to everything that they keep saying that they (and saying that their opponents in Labour don't) stand for by continually looking backwards (and quite a long way backwards, now).

So-called "Progress" is stuck in the past.

I don't think they do 'wheel him out'.

In 2010 Blair made no intervention as it would not have helped his preferred candidate. Today it is clear that the candidate he (and I) would prefer is going to lose, and so it makes no difference.

It is certainly true that the right of the party needs a figurehead who we can persuade the rest of the party to elect them. I had hoped Kendall would be that person, but it seems not.

Given that yesterday's poll was carried out before the Welfare Bill fiasco, and that the Corbyn-ite ultras tend to be more committed than those determined to elect Burnham (are there such people?) my current fear is that it understated Corbyn's strength.

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?
I did a Yougov poll about the Labour leadership, I don't know if it was the one quoted. I said "don't know" for who I would elect leader. There were 20% " don't knows" in the published poll, I believe. There was also a question about likelihood to vote. I wonder if Corbyn's supporters came out higher on likelihood to vote? I may look for the details on this poll as the media seem keen on the Corbyn ahead, Labour gone mad, narrative. They may be stretching the data to fit a story to suit them.

Likely or v likely to vote came out at 95%. Which will not be right

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/07/22/co ... p-contest/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Wed 22 Jul, 2015 11:51 am

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 ????

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Wed 22 Jul, 2015 12:10 pm

That is why I can't join in with the nice things said about Hunt above - his analysis is often so wrong-headed.

There is a good argument that "a populist anti-austerity movement" is *exactly* what the Labour party needs to be in the next few years.

(and no, I'm still not voting for Jezza and don't want to see him become leader; that does not conflict with the above, though)

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Wed 22 Jul, 2015 12:16 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:
Willow904 wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:
I don't think they do 'wheel him out'.

In 2010 Blair made no intervention as it would not have helped his preferred candidate. Today it is clear that the candidate he (and I) would prefer is going to lose, and so it makes no difference.

It is certainly true that the right of the party needs a figurehead who we can persuade the rest of the party to elect them. I had hoped Kendall would be that person, but it seems not.

Given that yesterday's poll was carried out before the Welfare Bill fiasco, and that the Corbyn-ite ultras tend to be more committed than those determined to elect Burnham (are there such people?) my current fear is that it understated Corbyn's strength.

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?
I did a Yougov poll about the Labour leadership, I don't know if it was the one quoted. I said "don't know" for who I would elect leader. There were 20% " don't knows" in the published poll, I believe. There was also a question about likelihood to vote. I wonder if Corbyn's supporters came out higher on likelihood to vote? I may look for the details on this poll as the media seem keen on the Corbyn ahead, Labour gone mad, narrative. They may be stretching the data to fit a story to suit them.
Likely or v likely to vote came out at 95%. Which will not be right

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/07/22/co ... p-contest/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That does sound high, doesn't it? The poll details show which candidates respondants supported in 2010 if applicable, but gives no details of how many respondants this was applicable to, which would be helpful as it would give a better idea of the demographic spread of the poll.

Burnham and Cooper have some work to do, but they are both very much in the race. Kendall seems out of it, but I personally don't think that's a true reflection of the support for the Labour right. Umunna would have done considerably better. Kendall had very low recognition in the poll, whereas Umunna would have had a head start both in recognition and experience.
The BBC is laying on their "amazement" of how well Corbyn is doing a little thick. He is an experienced and polished public speaker, it is no surprise he would do well in a public speaker setting such as election hustings. Does that mean the Labour membership want him as leader? This poll will push people to make a serious consideration of that question. We will see....

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Wed 22 Jul, 2015 12:23 pm

One thing that needs to happen now is that JC needs to be pinned down on whether he is really going to serve just a few years as leader, then stand down.

He has hinted at this, and his team have been even less ambiguous. He needs to leave no doubt about it one way or the other, though.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 22 Jul, 2015 12:25 pm

http://paullewismoney.blogspot.co.uk/20 ... ional.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

MERGING INCOME TAX AND NATIONAL INSURANCE

The Government has asked the Office of Tax Simplification to investigate 'closer alignment' of income tax and National Insurance. It could result in a single new tax which would probably apply only to earnings.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 22 Jul, 2015 12:29 pm

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

We were fed lies about the violence at Orgreave. Now we need the truth
David Conn

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Wed 22 Jul, 2015 12:31 pm

HindleA wrote:http://paullewismoney.blogspot.co.uk/20 ... ional.html

MERGING INCOME TAX AND NATIONAL INSURANCE

The Government has asked the Office of Tax Simplification to investigate 'closer alignment' of income tax and National Insurance. It could result in a single new tax which would probably apply only to earnings.

How would that affect people whose "stamp" is paid whilst they are on benefits? And those people who are below the tax threshold? Will they be frozen out of the system? (Ok. Ok. I'll go and read the article now - and the question may be answered!)

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Wed 22 Jul, 2015 12:32 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:One thing that needs to happen now is that JC needs to be pinned down on whether he is really going to serve just a few years as leader, then stand down.

He has hinted at this, and his team have been even less ambiguous. He needs to leave no doubt about it one way or the other, though.

He said he would serve "the full five years".

Which tells you everything you need to know about what would happen in 2020.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Wed 22 Jul, 2015 12:33 pm

That's not what a lot of his campaign team have been saying.......

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Wed 22 Jul, 2015 12:41 pm

PorFavor wrote:
HindleA wrote:http://paullewismoney.blogspot.co.uk/20 ... ional.html

MERGING INCOME TAX AND NATIONAL INSURANCE

The Government has asked the Office of Tax Simplification to investigate 'closer alignment' of income tax and National Insurance. It could result in a single new tax which would probably apply only to earnings.

How would that affect people whose "stamp" is paid whilst they are on benefits? And those people who are below the tax threshold? Will they be frozen out of the system? (Ok. Ok. I'll go and read the article now - and the question may be answered!)

I doubt it will happen - if it was simple it would have been done by now.

That Office for Tax Simplification under John Whiting (ex PwC tax partner and someone I've heard speak) has been running for a few years now and if they haven't come up with a watertight way of solving this then they never will.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 22 Jul, 2015 12:42 pm

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015 ... ple-commit" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

To combat disability hate crime, we must understand why people commit it
Katharine Quarmby
First-ever survey of the motivation behind disability hate crime reveals that it is often related to an idea of them as ‘benefit scroungers’ who get special perks

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Wed 22 Jul, 2015 12:44 pm

RogerOThornhill wrote:
PorFavor wrote:
HindleA wrote:http://paullewismoney.blogspot.co.uk/20 ... ional.html

MERGING INCOME TAX AND NATIONAL INSURANCE

The Government has asked the Office of Tax Simplification to investigate 'closer alignment' of income tax and National Insurance. It could result in a single new tax which would probably apply only to earnings.

How would that affect people whose "stamp" is paid whilst they are on benefits? And those people who are below the tax threshold? Will they be frozen out of the system? (Ok. Ok. I'll go and read the article now - and the question may be answered!)
I doubt it will happen - if it was simple it would have been done by now.

That Office for Tax Simplification under John Whiting (ex PwC tax partner and someone I've heard speak) has been running for a few years now and if they haven't come up with a watertight way of solving this then they never will.

You may well be right. But, on the other hand, we do have Universal Credit . . . .

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 22 Jul, 2015 12:52 pm

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/cr ... 05711.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Boris Johnson considering buying 'sound cannons' to help Scotland Yard tackle riots

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Wed 22 Jul, 2015 1:09 pm

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.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 22 Jul, 2015 1:32 pm

double post