Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Democratic voters are more fired up about WH2020 than Republic

24

Comments

  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    Whoever leaked this material had first to have possessed it, so a minister or civil servant, not Bannon or Farage.

    Nobody said Bannon or Farage leaked it.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    rcs1000 said:

    or if there might be a 50/1 outsider who can break through in the next eight months before the first primaries.

    KLOBUCHAR!
    Klobuchar's sole distinguishing feature is that she eats salad with a comb.
    Chicken salad ain’t that bad
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,069
    Charles said:

    This doctors' shortage due to pension arrangements looks like it could be easily fixed so it is surprising neither leadership candidate has mentioned the issue.

    I’m confused that doctors are saying they “can’t afford” to work the extra hours

    I understand that there are very high marginal rates of tax if they do (because they have maxed out their pensions)

    Are these greater than 100%?

    If not then they *can* afford to, but they would rather do something else with their time.

    I suspect this would get less sympathy with the general public
    Yes, the rate can exceed 100%, but generally it is just short of 100%.

    The practical issue is that this is a tax bill as a result of pension growth, but having to be paid from current income. The bill doesn't come until 6 months after the tax year ends so can be difficult to plan for.

    It covers all income, including private practice, so that is being cut back too, not just NHS work.

    I have stopped doing extra shifts myself. I do not expect sympathy as it is a problem only for those with incomes over £110 000, but there are a lot of cancelled sessions over the summer, impossible to cover. Cancelled operations are in the news, but staffing Intensive Care and Emergency Dept is problematic too.
  • Charles said:

    This doctors' shortage due to pension arrangements looks like it could be easily fixed so it is surprising neither leadership candidate has mentioned the issue.

    I’m confused that doctors are saying they “can’t afford” to work the extra hours

    I understand that there are very high marginal rates of tax if they do (because they have maxed out their pensions)

    Are these greater than 100%?

    If not then they *can* afford to, but they would rather do something else with their time.

    I suspect this would get less sympathy with the general public
    I'm not exactly sure why you're typing such nonsense at this time of day - but I'm all for an upper tax rate of 49pc (maybe 49.5) on say over 100k when I'm benevolent dictator.
  • HYUFD said:

    O/T, on the next Chancellor of the Exchequer market, I have put a few quid on Esther McVey as next CoE at 50/1 on Ladbrokes. I think Johnson will appoint a woman as CoE, part to deflect charges of sexism, ,part because of the symbolism.
    If so, the possible names that spring to mind are Truss, Leadsom, Patel, Mourdant and McVey (I can't see Rudd as having a chance in Hell).

    Truss is the favourite booking wise but I think two things will weigh against her. First, Johnson's pledge to hire 20,000 extra officers (and likely more pledges) fits ill with Truss' view on public spending and low taxation. Second, I suspect Johnson thinks she does not have the mettle / profile to make a success in the role.

    Of the others, keeping Mourdant at Defence seems like a no-brainer - he doesn't reward a Hunt supporter with the CoE job and, anyway, she is first female Defence Sec. I also don't see Leadsom as fitting in with BoJo's plans on the finance front although she would be good at the dispatch box and I would have an outside bet on her.

    That leaves Patel and McVey. Again, Patel may struggle with the funding pledges side of things and her personality may not be suited (although Johnson may like the symbolism of both the UK's first female and Asian CoE). However, McVey has been pushing the extra funding line so Johnson's pledges would fit exactly in with her message and she has the mettle to take on the opposition.

    Plus, it would put her directly opposite John McDonnell.

    I have a few quid on Truss from some weeks ago, but I think it will be Javid now.
    Javid Chancellor, Truss Business
    Truss Business yes. I don't think BoJo will want Javid challenging him as CoE. Better to keep him as Home Sec and implement the plans on the police officers.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,749
    nichomar said:

    Scott_P said:

    Taking back control means lying down, rolling over and doing Donald Trump’s bidding.

    https://twitter.com/tamcohen/status/1148128270392680449

    The Conservative party will discover that prostrating the UK at the feet of Donald Trump will not be electorally popular. It will certainly increase anti-Tory tactical voting.

    The interview was pathetic and he got away with claiming we want a trade deal, that Johnson would negotiate a new deal to leave the EU , that he would solve the NI issues and finally stop a Marxist government getting elected without a single challenge.
    No questioning of what is the impact of a trade deal with US does not challenge him on the stated EU position of no renegotiation and whilst corbyn is left wing it’s a bit far fetched to call him Marxist without challenge.
    I see demands for more optimism is the current Tory cry, from retired groping cabinet ministers to any old sock puppet. Is the magic optimism tree a hybrid offshoot of the magic money tree?
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,124
    Scott_P said:
    I deplore age discrimination but she makes it really hard to hold the line.
  • Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    This doctors' shortage due to pension arrangements looks like it could be easily fixed so it is surprising neither leadership candidate has mentioned the issue.

    I’m confused that doctors are saying they “can’t afford” to work the extra hours

    I understand that there are very high marginal rates of tax if they do (because they have maxed out their pensions)

    Are these greater than 100%?

    If not then they *can* afford to, but they would rather do something else with their time.

    I suspect this would get less sympathy with the general public
    Yes, the rate can exceed 100%, but generally it is just short of 100%.

    The practical issue is that this is a tax bill as a result of pension growth, but having to be paid from current income. The bill doesn't come until 6 months after the tax year ends so can be difficult to plan for.

    It covers all income, including private practice, so that is being cut back too, not just NHS work.

    I have stopped doing extra shifts myself. I do not expect sympathy as it is a problem only for those with incomes over £110 000, but there are a lot of cancelled sessions over the summer, impossible to cover. Cancelled operations are in the news, but staffing Intensive Care and Emergency Dept is problematic too.
    The upper tax rate is 40 or 45pc (I forget which; I'll never reach it) - enough of the nonsense.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712

    HYUFD said:

    O/T, on the next Chancellor of the Exchequer market, I have put a few quid on Esther McVey as next CoE at 50/1 on Ladbrokes. I think Johnson will appoint a woman as CoE, part to deflect charges of sexism, ,part because of the symbolism.
    If so, the possible names that spring to mind are Truss, Leadsom, Patel, Mourdant and McVey (I can't see Rudd as having a chance in Hell).

    Truss is the favourite booking wise but I think two things will weigh against her. First, Johnson's pledge to hire 20,000 extra officers (and likely more pledges) fits ill with Truss' view on public spending and low taxation. Second, I suspect Johnson thinks she does not have the mettle / profile to make a success in the role.

    Of the others, keeping Mourdant at Defence seems like a no-brainer - he doesn't reward a Hunt supporter with the CoE job and, anyway, she is first female Defence Sec. I also don't see Leadsom as fitting in with BoJo's plans on the finance front although she would be good at the dispatch box and I would have an outside bet on her.

    That leaves Patel and McVey. Again, Patel may struggle with the funding pledges side of things and her personality may not be suited (although Johnson may like the symbolism of both the UK's first female and Asian CoE). However, McVey has been pushing the extra funding line so Johnson's pledges would fit exactly in with her message and she has the mettle to take on the opposition.

    Plus, it would put her directly opposite John McDonnell.

    I have a few quid on Truss from some weeks ago, but I think it will be Javid now.
    Javid Chancellor, Truss Business
    Javid can probably choose his own job. Does he want to be Chancellor rather than Home or Foreign Secretary? He might but the recent record of Chancellors attempting to move next door is surely not encouraging.
    Well Major and Brown got the top job with 1 Home Secretary, May and 1 Foreign Secretary, Boris most likely.

    I can see Javid Chancellor, Raab Home Secretary, Hunt Foreign Secretary still plus Boris' Deputy PM
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Foxy said:

    I always think of Luntz as that guy who ran a newsnight focus group that tipped Cameron when he was an outsider. So I pay attention to him but I don't bet on American politics.

    Quite what the tories saw in his sub-blairism at that stage I don't know.

    Election victory? Cameron is the only Tory leader to win a majority in a quarter century. Being pure and in opposition, the novelty wears off fairly quickly.
    What about Blair?
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 14,912
    I believe that Johnson had a copy of this hideous tome, Britannia Unchanged, amid the detritus of his car. No doubt while he bumbles around insulting people and making stuff up, various of the book's authors will be beavering away dismantling what remains of the welfare state and business regulations in this country, no doubt making good use of the disaster of a no deal Brexit as a premise for the kind of Thatcherism that even Thatcher would have balked at.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jul/07/boris-johnson-government-britannia-unchained
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,069

    Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    This doctors' shortage due to pension arrangements looks like it could be easily fixed so it is surprising neither leadership candidate has mentioned the issue.

    I’m confused that doctors are saying they “can’t afford” to work the extra hours

    I understand that there are very high marginal rates of tax if they do (because they have maxed out their pensions)

    Are these greater than 100%?

    If not then they *can* afford to, but they would rather do something else with their time.

    I suspect this would get less sympathy with the general public
    Yes, the rate can exceed 100%, but generally it is just short of 100%.

    The practical issue is that this is a tax bill as a result of pension growth, but having to be paid from current income. The bill doesn't come until 6 months after the tax year ends so can be difficult to plan for.

    It covers all income, including private practice, so that is being cut back too, not just NHS work.

    I have stopped doing extra shifts myself. I do not expect sympathy as it is a problem only for those with incomes over £110 000, but there are a lot of cancelled sessions over the summer, impossible to cover. Cancelled operations are in the news, but staffing Intensive Care and Emergency Dept is problematic too.
    The upper tax rate is 40 or 45pc (I forget which; I'll never reach it) - enough of the nonsense.
    Not true, the marginal rate is 60% between £106-126 000, due to withdrawal of the personal allowance. The pensions taper has the same effect of increasing the marginal rate to nearly 100% (and occasionally more) if part of the pensions scheme.

    I know, because I pay both!
  • Charles said:

    Foxy said:

    I always think of Luntz as that guy who ran a newsnight focus group that tipped Cameron when he was an outsider. So I pay attention to him but I don't bet on American politics.

    Quite what the tories saw in his sub-blairism at that stage I don't know.

    Election victory? Cameron is the only Tory leader to win a majority in a quarter century. Being pure and in opposition, the novelty wears off fairly quickly.
    What about Blair?
    Haha - touche - he get's blamed for Iraq shenanigans but if the Union does break up it will be almost entirely his fault.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789
    HYUFD said:

    I can see Javid Chancellor, Raab Home Secretary, Hunt Foreign Secretary still plus Boris' Deputy PM

    Do you think Raab has the right qualities to be Home Secretary?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950

    O/T, on the next Chancellor of the Exchequer market, I have put a few quid on Esther McVey as next CoE at 50/1 on Ladbrokes. I think Johnson will appoint a woman as CoE, part to deflect charges of sexism, ,part because of the symbolism.
    If so, the possible names that spring to mind are Truss, Leadsom, Patel, Mourdant and McVey (I can't see Rudd as having a chance in Hell).

    Truss is the favourite booking wise but I think two things will weigh against her. First, Johnson's pledge to hire 20,000 extra officers (and likely more pledges) fits ill with Truss' view on public spending and low taxation. Second, I suspect Johnson thinks she does not have the mettle / profile to make a success in the role.

    Of the others, keeping Mourdant at Defence seems like a no-brainer - he doesn't reward a Hunt supporter with the CoE job and, anyway, she is first female Defence Sec. I also don't see Leadsom as fitting in with BoJo's plans on the finance front although she would be good at the dispatch box and I would have an outside bet on her.

    That leaves Patel and McVey. Again, Patel may struggle with the funding pledges side of things and her personality may not be suited (although Johnson may like the symbolism of both the UK's first female and Asian CoE). However, McVey has been pushing the extra funding line so Johnson's pledges would fit exactly in with her message and she has the mettle to take on the opposition.

    Plus, it would put her directly opposite John McDonnell.

    What are these "BoJo's plans" of which you speak?
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    O/T, on the next Chancellor of the Exchequer market, I have put a few quid on Esther McVey as next CoE at 50/1 on Ladbrokes. I think Johnson will appoint a woman as CoE, part to deflect charges of sexism, ,part because of the symbolism.
    If so, the possible names that spring to mind are Truss, Leadsom, Patel, Mourdant and McVey (I can't see Rudd as having a chance in Hell).

    Truss is the favourite booking wise but I think two things will weigh against her. First, Johnson's pledge to hire 20,000 extra officers (and likely more pledges) fits ill with Truss' view on public spending and low taxation. Second, I suspect Johnson thinks she does not have the mettle / profile to make a success in the role.

    Of the others, keeping Mourdant at Defence seems like a no-brainer - he doesn't reward a Hunt supporter with the CoE job and, anyway, she is first female Defence Sec. I also don't see Leadsom as fitting in with BoJo's plans on the finance front although she would be good at the dispatch box and I would have an outside bet on her.

    That leaves Patel and McVey. Again, Patel may struggle with the funding pledges side of things and her personality may not be suited (although Johnson may like the symbolism of both the UK's first female and Asian CoE). However, McVey has been pushing the extra funding line so Johnson's pledges would fit exactly in with her message and she has the mettle to take on the opposition.

    Plus, it would put her directly opposite John McDonnell.

    I have a few quid on Truss from some weeks ago, but I think it will be Javid now.
    Javid Chancellor, Truss Business
    Javid can probably choose his own job. Does he want to be Chancellor rather than Home or Foreign Secretary? He might but the recent record of Chancellors attempting to move next door is surely not encouraging.
    Well Major and Brown got the top job with 1 Home Secretary, May and 1 Foreign Secretary, Boris most likely.

    I can see Javid Chancellor, Raab Home Secretary, Hunt Foreign Secretary still plus Boris' Deputy PM
    John Major was Foreign Secretary as well. I'd bet on Saj getting whatever he asks for, so what has he asked for?
  • Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    This doctors' shortage due to pension arrangements looks like it could be easily fixed so it is surprising neither leadership candidate has mentioned the issue.

    I’m confused that doctors are saying they “can’t afford” to work the extra hours

    I understand that there are very high marginal rates of tax if they do (because they have maxed out their pensions)

    Are these greater than 100%?

    If not then they *can* afford to, but they would rather do something else with their time.

    I suspect this would get less sympathy with the general public
    Yes, the rate can exceed 100%, but generally it is just short of 100%.

    The practical issue is that this is a tax bill as a result of pension growth, but having to be paid from current income. The bill doesn't come until 6 months after the tax year ends so can be difficult to plan for.

    It covers all income, including private practice, so that is being cut back too, not just NHS work.

    I have stopped doing extra shifts myself. I do not expect sympathy as it is a problem only for those with incomes over £110 000, but there are a lot of cancelled sessions over the summer, impossible to cover. Cancelled operations are in the news, but staffing Intensive Care and Emergency Dept is problematic too.
    The upper tax rate is 40 or 45pc (I forget which; I'll never reach it) - enough of the nonsense.
    Not true, the marginal rate is 60% between £106-126 000, due to withdrawal of the personal allowance. The pensions taper has the same effect of increasing the marginal rate to nearly 100% (and occasionally more) if part of the pensions scheme.

    I know, because I pay both!
    Well I didn't know the personal allowance got withdrawn. Pensions schmenions.

    Don't worry when I'm world king your marginal tax will only be 49 (or 49.5)pc.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Scottish Labour to ditch Better Together alliance with Tories in IndyRef2

    https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/scottish-labour-ditch-better-together-17483692.amp

    Scottish Labour Leader Richard Leonard 'told how he had been “opposed to the Better Together campaign approach the Labour Party took” in the run-up to the 2014 vote – when Scots rejected independence and opted to stay in the UK by 55 per cent to 45 per cent.
    Speaking in Motherwell to promote Labour’s policy for a “green industrial revolution” Leonard said: “I thought there should always have been then an autonomous, distinctive, Labour case made for voting ‘No’ in that referendum, but with a view to reform and change.
    “Nothing in my mind has changed about that.”
    He added that in the event of a future independence referendum campaign, Labour’s “distinctive” approach would be based on reform of the UK while remaining in the UK.'
    Any and all splits in Unionist ranks are to be welcomed.
    What is needed to appeal to a traditional Labour middle aged working class potential No voter in the Central belt is different to what is needed to appeal to a traditional Tory pensioner potential No voter in the Scottish borders so I have no problem with it
    That old Lib Dem trick of giving contradictory messages to different geographical groups doesn’t work in the internet age. The No side will be a laughing stock within days of the campaign starting.
    It's worked so far for Boris Johnson.
    Only because the voters in that election are desperate and have no viable alternative. It will fall apart quickly.

    The trick never works against a serious opponent.
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797

    Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    This doctors' shortage due to pension arrangements looks like it could be easily fixed so it is surprising neither leadership candidate has mentioned the issue.

    I’m confused that doctors are saying they “can’t afford” to work the extra hours

    I understand that there are very high marginal rates of tax if they do (because they have maxed out their pensions)

    Are these greater than 100%?

    If not then they *can* afford to, but they would rather do something else with their time.

    I suspect this would get less sympathy with the general public
    Yes, the rate can exceed 100%, but generally it is just short of 100%.

    The practical issue is that this is a tax bill as a result of pension growth, but having to be paid from current income. The bill doesn't come until 6 months after the tax year ends so can be difficult to plan for.

    It covers all income, including private practice, so that is being cut back too, not just NHS work.

    I have stopped doing extra shifts myself. I do not expect sympathy as it is a problem only for those with incomes over £110 000, but there are a lot of cancelled sessions over the summer, impossible to cover. Cancelled operations are in the news, but staffing Intensive Care and Emergency Dept is problematic too.
    The upper tax rate is 40 or 45pc (I forget which; I'll never reach it) - enough of the nonsense.
    It's the combination of lost allowances that are causing this not tax rates. The marginal rates add up quickly if you your maximum amount that can be paid into a pension drops from £40k to £10k especially as the money paid into the pension is kept in the pension but you have to pay tax on it out of the income you have..
  • franklynfranklyn Posts: 297
    And what job will that paragon of excellence Chris Grayling get in the Johnson government? I think we ought to be forewarned
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146


    You're probably right that Scottish Independence might save Labour from dodo territory, but don't mix up cause and effect. Labour switching to back independence may allow them to fish from the same pool of voters the SNP and Greence currently monopolise but it won't bring Labour voters over to back independence . . . since there are no Labor voters worth mentioning to bring over. That's the issue.

    Do you really think the reason the SNP and Greens and others backing Indy failed last time was becase they lacked the genius that is SLAB?

    Better Together succeeded in part because they had SLab foot soldiers knocking on pensioners' doors with bad tidings. I believe even David L. of this parish donned a Labour badge for some 'campaigning'. I'm as sure as I am that the sun will rise tomorrow that no supporter of the Labour party put on a SCon badge to do his bit for the Union.
    You’re wasting your time trying to explain it to them. They clearly haven’t the foggiest idea why No won the 2014 referendum, therefore they come up with the most bizarre theories about how they might win IndyRef2. This cheers me tremendously. Lunatics are in charge of the asylum.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    Lunatics are in charge of the asylum.

    Numtpies are certainly in charge of health services...

    https://twitter.com/Sunday_Post/status/1147890537707577344
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    This doctors' shortage due to pension arrangements looks like it could be easily fixed so it is surprising neither leadership candidate has mentioned the issue.

    I’m confused that doctors are saying they “can’t afford” to work the extra hours

    I understand that there are very high marginal rates of tax if they do (because they have maxed out their pensions)

    Are these greater than 100%?

    If not then they *can* afford to, but they would rather do something else with their time.

    I suspect this would get less sympathy with the general public
    Yes, the rate can exceed 100%, but generally it is just short of 100%.

    The practical issue is that this is a tax bill as a result of pension growth, but having to be paid from current income. The bill doesn't come until 6 months after the tax year ends so can be difficult to plan for.

    It covers all income, including private practice, so that is being cut back too, not just NHS work.

    I have stopped doing extra shifts myself. I do not expect sympathy as it is a problem only for those with incomes over £110 000, but there are a lot of cancelled sessions over the summer, impossible to cover. Cancelled operations are in the news, but staffing Intensive Care and Emergency Dept is problematic too.
    The upper tax rate is 40 or 45pc (I forget which; I'll never reach it) - enough of the nonsense.
    It’s to do with the fact that they have a great pension scheme (paid for by you) with a very attractive multiplier.

    Essentially the increase in the implied value of their final salary pension exceeds the £10,000 allowance that normal high earners get. Consequently they are asked to pay the penal tax rates for over contribution that any ordinary individual in this position would have to.

    Instead they are kicking up a fuss and asking for special treatment because... because... umm... they are special?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712

    HYUFD said:

    I can see Javid Chancellor, Raab Home Secretary, Hunt Foreign Secretary still plus Boris' Deputy PM

    Do you think Raab has the right qualities to be Home Secretary?
    Yes, he is a lawyer and tough
  • TOPPING said:

    O/T, on the next Chancellor of the Exchequer market, I have put a few quid on Esther McVey as next CoE at 50/1 on Ladbrokes. I think Johnson will appoint a woman as CoE, part to deflect charges of sexism, ,part because of the symbolism.
    If so, the possible names that spring to mind are Truss, Leadsom, Patel, Mourdant and McVey (I can't see Rudd as having a chance in Hell).

    Truss is the favourite booking wise but I think two things will weigh against her. First, Johnson's pledge to hire 20,000 extra officers (and likely more pledges) fits ill with Truss' view on public spending and low taxation. Second, I suspect Johnson thinks she does not have the mettle / profile to make a success in the role.

    Of the others, keeping Mourdant at Defence seems like a no-brainer - he doesn't reward a Hunt supporter with the CoE job and, anyway, she is first female Defence Sec. I also don't see Leadsom as fitting in with BoJo's plans on the finance front although she would be good at the dispatch box and I would have an outside bet on her.

    That leaves Patel and McVey. Again, Patel may struggle with the funding pledges side of things and her personality may not be suited (although Johnson may like the symbolism of both the UK's first female and Asian CoE). However, McVey has been pushing the extra funding line so Johnson's pledges would fit exactly in with her message and she has the mettle to take on the opposition.

    Plus, it would put her directly opposite John McDonnell.

    What are these "BoJo's plans" of which you speak?
    Ok, "plans" is not something you associate with BJ....
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851
    Pulpstar said:

    "On the Betfair exchange Biden is currently rated as a 13% chance for the nomination – down from 31% before last month’s TV debates. Kamala Harris is at 33% with Elizabeth Warren at 19%."

    What is justifying Harris' price ?

    It's because the smart money is on her - mine.
    :smile:
  • kjhkjh Posts: 10,458

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    This doctors' shortage due to pension arrangements looks like it could be easily fixed so it is surprising neither leadership candidate has mentioned the issue.

    I’m confused that doctors are saying they “can’t afford” to work the extra hours

    I understand that there are very high marginal rates of tax if they do (because they have maxed out their pensions)

    Are these greater than 100%?

    If not then they *can* afford to, but they would rather do something else with their time.

    I suspect this would get less sympathy with the general public
    Yes, the rate can exceed 100%, but generally it is just short of 100%.

    The practical issue is that this is a tax bill as a result of pension growth, but having to be paid from current income. The bill doesn't come until 6 months after the tax year ends so can be difficult to plan for.

    It covers all income, including private practice, so that is being cut back too, not just NHS work.

    I have stopped doing extra shifts myself. I do not expect sympathy as it is a problem only for those with incomes over £110 000, but there are a lot of cancelled sessions over the summer, impossible to cover. Cancelled operations are in the news, but staffing Intensive Care and Emergency Dept is problematic too.
    The upper tax rate is 40 or 45pc (I forget which; I'll never reach it) - enough of the nonsense.
    Not true, the marginal rate is 60% between £106-126 000, due to withdrawal of the personal allowance. The pensions taper has the same effect of increasing the marginal rate to nearly 100% (and occasionally more) if part of the pensions scheme.

    I know, because I pay both!
    Well I didn't know the personal allowance got withdrawn. Pensions schmenions.

    Don't worry when I'm world king your marginal tax will only be 49 (or 49.5)pc.
    Beaten to it by Foxy. I'm not sure where £106,000 came from. It should be £100,000 unless I have missed something. You also need to take into account the upper band of NI of 2% which is in effect Income Tax by any other name.

    I appreciate there will not be a lot of sympathy for people in these income brackets, but equally you can't expect them to work for nothing.

    Marginal rates are a mess:

    Tax = 0%, 20%, 40%, 60%, 40%, 45%
    NI = 0%, 12%(ish), 2%

    When you add those two together you are all over the place going up and down rather than always up as you go up in income.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    edited July 2019


    You're probably right that Scottish Independence might save Labour from dodo territory, but don't mix up cause and effect. Labour switching to back independence may allow them to fish from the same pool of voters the SNP and Greence currently monopolise but it won't bring Labour voters over to back independence . . . since there are no Labor voters worth mentioning to bring over. That's the issue.

    Do you really think the reason the SNP and Greens and others backing Indy failed last time was becase they lacked the genius that is SLAB?

    Better Together succeeded in part because they had SLab foot soldiers knocking on pensioners' doors with bad tidings. I believe even David L. of this parish donned a Labour badge for some 'campaigning'. I'm as sure as I am that the sun will rise tomorrow that no supporter of the Labour party put on a SCon badge to do his bit for the Union.
    You’re wasting your time trying to explain it to them. They clearly haven’t the foggiest idea why No won the 2014 referendum, therefore they come up with the most bizarre theories about how they might win IndyRef2. This cheers me tremendously. Lunatics are in charge of the asylum.
    Labour managed to lose half the central belt to Yes in 2014, including Glasgow, those who stayed are committed Unionists anyway. The rest of the No vote was made up of Tory pensioners in rural areas and middle class LDs in cities like Edinburgh
  • Charles said:

    Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    This doctors' shortage due to pension arrangements looks like it could be easily fixed so it is surprising neither leadership candidate has mentioned the issue.

    I’m confused that doctors are saying they “can’t afford” to work the extra hours

    I understand that there are very high marginal rates of tax if they do (because they have maxed out their pensions)

    Are these greater than 100%?

    If not then they *can* afford to, but they would rather do something else with their time.

    I suspect this would get less sympathy with the general public
    Yes, the rate can exceed 100%, but generally it is just short of 100%.

    The practical issue is that this is a tax bill as a result of pension growth, but having to be paid from current income. The bill doesn't come until 6 months after the tax year ends so can be difficult to plan for.

    It covers all income, including private practice, so that is being cut back too, not just NHS work.

    I have stopped doing extra shifts myself. I do not expect sympathy as it is a problem only for those with incomes over £110 000, but there are a lot of cancelled sessions over the summer, impossible to cover. Cancelled operations are in the news, but staffing Intensive Care and Emergency Dept is problematic too.
    The upper tax rate is 40 or 45pc (I forget which; I'll never reach it) - enough of the nonsense.
    It’s to do with the fact that they have a great pension scheme (paid for by you) with a very attractive multiplier.

    Essentially the increase in the implied value of their final salary pension exceeds the £10,000 allowance that normal high earners get. Consequently they are asked to pay the penal tax rates for over contribution that any ordinary individual in this position would have to.

    Instead they are kicking up a fuss and asking for special treatment because... because... umm... they are special?
    I never could get a hang of implied (non-pension) pot odds.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    kjh said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    This doctors' shortage due to pension arrangements looks like it could be easily fixed so it is surprising neither leadership candidate has mentioned the issue.

    I suspect this would get less sympathy with the general public
    Yes, the rate can exceed 100%, but generally it is just short of 100%.

    The practical issue is that this is a tax bill as a result of pension growth, but having to be paid from current income. The bill doesn't come until 6 months after the tax year ends so can be difficult to plan for.

    It covers all income, including private practice, so that is being cut back too, not just NHS work.

    I have stopped doing extra shifts myself. I do not expect sympathy as it is a problem only for those with incomes over £110 000, but there are a lot of cancelled sessions over the summer, impossible to cover. Cancelled operations are in the news, but staffing Intensive Care and Emergency Dept is problematic too.
    The upper tax rate is 40 or 45pc (I forget which; I'll never reach it) - enough of the nonsense.
    Not true, the marginal rate is 60% between £106-126 000, due to withdrawal of the personal allowance. The pensions taper has the same effect of increasing the marginal rate to nearly 100% (and occasionally more) if part of the pensions scheme.

    I know, because I pay both!
    Well I didn't know the personal allowance got withdrawn. Pensions schmenions.

    Don't worry when I'm world king your marginal tax will only be 49 (or 49.5)pc.
    Beaten to it by Foxy. I'm not sure where £106,000 came from. It should be £100,000 unless I have missed something. You also need to take into account the upper band of NI of 2% which is in effect Income Tax by any other name.

    I appreciate there will not be a lot of sympathy for people in these income brackets, but equally you can't expect them to work for nothing.

    Marginal rates are a mess:

    Tax = 0%, 20%, 40%, 60%, 40%, 45%
    NI = 0%, 12%(ish), 2%

    When you add those two together you are all over the place going up and down rather than always up as you go up in income.
    The big issue is the withdrawal of the personal allowance (which also sticks in the throat most). That causes the 40-60-40 bump

    Another if Gordon Brown’s cunning plans

    They should reinstate it and fund it by increasing the rate by 1% (or whatever) above £100k
  • kjohnwkjohnw Posts: 1,456
    Scott_P said:
    Uncertainty is the enemy of business . Until brexit is resolved the uncertainty will kill off business investment and confidence. If TM had got a decent deal we would have resolved brexit by now
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    I can see Javid Chancellor, Raab Home Secretary, Hunt Foreign Secretary still plus Boris' Deputy PM

    Do you think Raab has the right qualities to be Home Secretary?
    Yes, he is a lawyer and tough
    And Raab now knows where Dover is; quite possibly some other places too.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    kjohnw said:

    If TM had got a decent deal we would have resolved brexit by now

    She did, and the headbangers refused to vote for Brexit
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146

    Charles said:

    Foxy said:

    I always think of Luntz as that guy who ran a newsnight focus group that tipped Cameron when he was an outsider. So I pay attention to him but I don't bet on American politics.

    Quite what the tories saw in his sub-blairism at that stage I don't know.

    Election victory? Cameron is the only Tory leader to win a majority in a quarter century. Being pure and in opposition, the novelty wears off fairly quickly.
    What about Blair?
    Haha - touche - he get's blamed for Iraq shenanigans but if the Union does break up it will be almost entirely his fault.
    His role in the history of the dissolution of the Union is significant, but the responsibility is hardly “almost entirely” his fault.

    The disassembly if the Union got going during the late Victorian era, and thus spans well over a century now. It is an extremely common historiographical error to ascribe over-significance to recent phenomena. Many, many PMs have contributed to the downfall of the Union.

    Blair’s key contribution was arrogance: he didn’t need to listen to Donald Dewar so he chose not to. It was Blair’s tinkering about with Dewar’s/Cook’s/Brown’s/Steel’s/Campbell’s/Wright’s/et al’s blueprint that crippled devolution from day one. He knew nothing, and cared nothing, for their Claim of Right and the long years of hard work in the Constitutional Convention.

    Blair threw out the one plan that, at this late stage, might just have saved the Union.

    Ta Tony!
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    And Raab now knows where Dover is; quite possibly some other places too.

    Still wouldn't bet on him to find it on a map though...
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,749
    edited July 2019
    HYUFD said:


    You're probably right that Scottish Independence might save Labour from dodo territory, but don't mix up cause and effect. Labour switching to back independence may allow them to fish from the same pool of voters the SNP and Greence currently monopolise but it won't bring Labour voters over to back independence . . . since there are no Labor voters worth mentioning to bring over. That's the issue.

    Do you really think the reason the SNP and Greens and others backing Indy failed last time was becase they lacked the genius that is SLAB?

    Better Together succeeded in part because they had SLab foot soldiers knocking on pensioners' doors with bad tidings. I believe even David L. of this parish donned a Labour badge for some 'campaigning'. I'm as sure as I am that the sun will rise tomorrow that no supporter of the Labour party put on a SCon badge to do his bit for the Union.
    You’re wasting your time trying to explain it to them. They clearly haven’t the foggiest idea why No won the 2014 referendum, therefore they come up with the most bizarre theories about how they might win IndyRef2. This cheers me tremendously. Lunatics are in charge of the asylum.
    Labour managed to lose half the central belt to Yes in 2014, including Glasgow, those who stayed are committed Unionists anyway. The rest of the No vote was made up of Tory pensioners in rural areas and middle class LDs in cities like Edinburgh
    I'm gonna love Better Together II being labelled as a Tory project, with the distinct possibility of optimistic Boris doing photo ops with haggises.

    https://twitter.com/jayrayner1/status/1147882481292648448



  • kjhkjh Posts: 10,458
    Charles said:

    Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    This doctors' shortage due to pension arrangements looks like it could be easily fixed so it is surprising neither leadership candidate has mentioned the issue.

    I’m confused that doctors are saying they “can’t afford” to work the extra hours

    I understand that there are very high marginal rates of tax if they do (because they have maxed out their pensions)

    Are these greater than 100%?

    If not then they *can* afford to, but they would rather do something else with their time.

    I suspect this would get less sympathy with the general public
    Yes, the rate can exceed 100%, but generally it is just short of 100%.

    The practical issue is that this is a tax bill as a result of pension growth, but having to be paid from current income. The bill doesn't come until 6 months after the tax year ends so can be difficult to plan for.

    It covers all income, including private practice, so that is being cut back too, not just NHS work.

    I have stopped doing extra shifts myself. I do not expect sympathy as it is a problem only for those with incomes over £110 000, but there are a lot of cancelled sessions over the summer, impossible to cover. Cancelled operations are in the news, but staffing Intensive Care and Emergency Dept is problematic too.
    The upper tax rate is 40 or 45pc (I forget which; I'll never reach it) - enough of the nonsense.
    It’s to do with the fact that they have a great pension scheme (paid for by you) with a very attractive multiplier.

    Essentially the increase in the implied value of their final salary pension exceeds the £10,000 allowance that normal high earners get. Consequently they are asked to pay the penal tax rates for over contribution that any ordinary individual in this position would have to.

    Instead they are kicking up a fuss and asking for special treatment because... because... umm... they are special?
    While I don't disagree with the point you are making Charles the immediate problem needs resolving. It is not the fault of Doctors that civil servants/ministers have screwed up the tax system and public sector pension and pay such that there is no incentive to work by effectively paying nothing for the extra work done.
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,059
    The tapered Annual Allowance is a terrible and ineffective tax - many people who should be paying it, aren't, as they don't know it impacts them.... those who do know about it often don't know what their annual allowance for the tax year was until AFTER the tax year has ended.

    With carry forward allowances running out now, it's only going to get worse.
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,059
    kjh said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    This doctors' shortage due to pension arrangements looks like it could be easily fixed so it is surprising neither leadership candidate has mentioned the issue.

    I’m confused that doctors are saying they “can’t afford” to work the extra hours

    I understand that there are very high marginal rates of tax if they do (because they have maxed out their pensions)

    Are these greater than 100%?

    If not then they *can* afford to, but they would rather do something else with their time.

    I suspect this would get less sympathy with the general public
    Yes, the rate can exceed 100%, but generally it is just short of 100%.

    The practical issue is that this is a tax bill as a result of pension growth, but having to be paid from current income. The bill doesn't come until 6 months after the tax year ends so can be difficult to plan for.

    It covers all income, including private practice, so that is being cut back too, not just NHS work.

    I have stopped doing extra shifts myself. I do not expect sympathy as it is a problem only for those with incomes over £110 000, but there are a lot of cancelled sessions over the summer, impossible to cover. Cancelled operations are in the news, but staffing Intensive Care and Emergency Dept is problematic too.
    The upper tax rate is 40 or 45pc (I forget which; I'll never reach it) - enough of the nonsense.
    Not true, the marginal rate is 60% between £106-126 000, due to withdrawal of the personal allowance. The pensions taper has the same effect of increasing the marginal rate to nearly 100% (and occasionally more) if part of the pensions scheme.

    I know, because I pay both!
    Well I didn't know the personal allowance got withdrawn. Pensions schmenions.

    Don't worry when I'm world king your marginal tax will only be 49 (or 49.5)pc.
    Beaten to it by Foxy. I'm not sure where £106,000 came from. It should be £100,000 unless I have missed something. You also need to take into account the upper band of NI of 2% which is in effect Income Tax by any other name.

    I appreciate there will not be a lot of sympathy for people in these income brackets, but equally you can't expect them to work for nothing.

    Marginal rates are a mess:

    Tax = 0%, 20%, 40%, 60%, 40%, 45%
    NI = 0%, 12%(ish), 2%

    When you add those two together you are all over the place going up and down rather than always up as you go up in income.
    plus the marginal rates of tax depending on how many children you have as your income goes from £50k to £60k and child benefit is lost.
  • Charles said:

    Foxy said:

    I always think of Luntz as that guy who ran a newsnight focus group that tipped Cameron when he was an outsider. So I pay attention to him but I don't bet on American politics.

    Quite what the tories saw in his sub-blairism at that stage I don't know.

    Election victory? Cameron is the only Tory leader to win a majority in a quarter century. Being pure and in opposition, the novelty wears off fairly quickly.
    What about Blair?
    Haha - touche - he get's blamed for Iraq shenanigans but if the Union does break up it will be almost entirely his fault.
    His role in the history of the dissolution of the Union is significant, but the responsibility is hardly “almost entirely” his fault.

    The disassembly if the Union got going during the late Victorian era, and thus spans well over a century now. It is an extremely common historiographical error to ascribe over-significance to recent phenomena. Many, many PMs have contributed to the downfall of the Union.

    Blair’s key contribution was arrogance: he didn’t need to listen to Donald Dewar so he chose not to. It was Blair’s tinkering about with Dewar’s/Cook’s/Brown’s/Steel’s/Campbell’s/Wright’s/et al’s blueprint that crippled devolution from day one. He knew nothing, and cared nothing, for their Claim of Right and the long years of hard work in the Constitutional Convention.

    Blair threw out the one plan that, at this late stage, might just have saved the Union.

    Ta Tony!
    Asymmetrical devolution is what that lot were asking for (I think, I was only young and have only read one book on the matter) and Blair gave it to them.

    The Union ain't dead yet though!
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    kjh said:

    Charles said:

    Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    This doctors' shortage due to pension arrangements looks like it could be easily fixed so it is surprising neither leadership candidate has mentioned the issue.

    I’m confused that doctors are saying they “can’t afford” to work the extra hours

    I understand that there are very high marginal rates of tax if they do (because they have maxed out their pensions)

    Are these greater than 100%?

    If not then they *can* afford to, but they would rather do something else with their time.

    I suspect this would get less sympathy with the general public
    Yes, the rate can exceed 100%, but generally it is just short of 100%.

    The practical issue is that this is a tax bill as a result of pension growth, but having to be paid from current income. The bill doesn't come until 6 months after the tax year ends so can be difficult to plan for.

    It covers all income, including private practice, so that is being cut back too, not just NHS work.

    I have stopped doing extra shifts myself. I do not expect sympathy as it is a problem only for those with incomes over £110 000, but there are a lot of cancelled sessions over the summer, impossible to cover. Cancelled operations are in the news, but staffing Intensive Care and Emergency Dept is problematic too.
    The upper tax rate is 40 or 45pc (I forget which; I'll never reach it) - enough of the nonsense.
    It’s to do with the fact that they have a great pension scheme (paid for by you) with a very attractive multiplier.

    Essentially the increase in the implied value of their final salary pension exceeds the £10,000 allowance that normal high earners get. Consequently they are asked to pay the penal tax rates for over contribution that any ordinary individual in this position would have to.

    Instead they are kicking up a fuss and asking for special treatment because... because... umm... they are special?
    While I don't disagree with the point you are making Charles the immediate problem needs resolving. It is not the fault of Doctors that civil servants/ministers have screwed up the tax system and public sector pension and pay such that there is no incentive to work by effectively paying nothing for the extra work done.
    The issue is that their pension scheme is way more generous than the private sector and it throws everything out of balance

    That’s the fix that needs to be done...
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,059
    Charles said:

    Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    This doctors' shortage due to pension arrangements looks like it could be easily fixed so it is surprising neither leadership candidate has mentioned the issue.

    I’m confused that doctors are saying they “can’t afford” to work the extra hours

    I understand that there are very high marginal rates of tax if they do (because they have maxed out their pensions)

    Are these greater than 100%?

    If not then they *can* afford to, but they would rather do something else with their time.

    I suspect this would get less sympathy with the general public
    Yes, the rate can exceed 100%, but generally it is just short of 100%.

    The practical issue is that this is a tax bill as a result of pension growth, but having to be paid from current income. The bill doesn't come until 6 months after the tax year ends so can be difficult to plan for.

    It covers all income, including private practice, so that is being cut back too, not just NHS work.

    I have stopped doing extra shifts myself. I do not expect sympathy as it is a problem only for those with incomes over £110 000, but there are a lot of cancelled sessions over the summer, impossible to cover. Cancelled operations are in the news, but staffing Intensive Care and Emergency Dept is problematic too.
    The upper tax rate is 40 or 45pc (I forget which; I'll never reach it) - enough of the nonsense.
    It’s to do with the fact that they have a great pension scheme (paid for by you) with a very attractive multiplier.

    Essentially the increase in the implied value of their final salary pension exceeds the £10,000 allowance that normal high earners get. Consequently they are asked to pay the penal tax rates for over contribution that any ordinary individual in this position would have to.

    Instead they are kicking up a fuss and asking for special treatment because... because... umm... they are special?
    Only those with "adjusted income" of over £210k have the flat £10k allowance those below have a ridiculously complicated position as to what their annual allowance is and most will only know what that is AFTER the tax year has ended.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 10,458
    Charles said:

    kjh said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    This doctors' shortage due to pension arrangements looks like it could be easily fixed so it is surprising neither leadership candidate has mentioned the issue.

    I suspect this would get less sympathy with the general public
    Yes, the rate can exceed 100%, but generally it is just short of 100%.

    The practical issue is that this is a tax bill as a result of pension growth, but having to be paid from current income. The bill doesn't come until 6 months after the tax year ends so can be difficult to plan for.

    It covers all income, including private practice, so that is being cut back too, not just NHS work.

    I have stopped doing extra shifts myself. I do not expect sympathy as it is a problem only for those with incomes over £110 000, but there are a lot of cancelled sessions over the summer, impossible to cover. Cancelled operations are in the news, but staffing Intensive Care and Emergency Dept is problematic too.
    The upper tax rate is 40 or 45pc (I forget which; I'll never reach it) - enough of the nonsense.

    Beaten to it by Foxy. I'm not sure where £106,000 came from. It should be £100,000 unless I have missed something. You also need to take into account the upper band of NI of 2% which is in effect Income Tax by any other name.

    I appreciate there will not be a lot of sympathy for people in these income brackets, but equally you can't expect them to work for nothing.

    Marginal rates are a mess:

    Tax = 0%, 20%, 40%, 60%, 40%, 45%
    NI = 0%, 12%(ish), 2%

    When you add those two together you are all over the place going up and down rather than always up as you go up in income.
    The big issue is the withdrawal of the personal allowance (which also sticks in the throat most). That causes the 40-60-40 bump

    Another if Gordon Brown’s cunning plans

    They should reinstate it and fund it by increasing the rate by 1% (or whatever) above £100k
    Yep. Gordon Brown's micro managing was disastrous. Anyone in the £100K - £120K band invariably made an AVC contribution anyway. His messing around with reduced Corporation Tax for very small businesses was the worst. Net effect was huge numbers of milkmen (and the like) setting up limited companies and a small earner for accountants. It had to be adjusted each year to counter all the abuses and then abandoned. Idiotic. It was pointless. He didn't have a clue.
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,059
    Charles said:

    kjh said:

    Charles said:

    Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    This doctors' shortage due to pension arrangements looks like it could be easily fixed so it is surprising neither leadership candidate has mentioned the issue.

    I’m confused that doctors are saying they “can’t afford” to work the extra hours

    I understand that there are very high marginal rates of tax if they do (because they have maxed out their pensions)

    Are these greater than 100%?

    If not then they *can* afford to, but they would rather do something else with their time.

    I suspect this would get less sympathy with the general public
    Yes, the rate can exceed 100%, but generally it is just short of 100%.

    The practical issue is that this is a tax bill as a result of pension growth, but having to be paid from current income. The bill doesn't come until 6 months after the tax year ends so can be difficult to plan for.

    It covers all income, including private practice, so that is being cut back too, not just NHS work.

    I have stopped doing extra shifts myself. I do not expect sympathy as it is a problem only for those with incomes over £110 000, but there are a lot of cancelled sessions over the summer, impossible to cover. Cancelled operations are in the news, but staffing Intensive Care and Emergency Dept is problematic too.
    The upper tax rate is 40 or 45pc (I forget which; I'll never reach it) - enough of the nonsense.
    It’s to do with the fact that they have a great pension scheme (paid for by you) with a very attractive multiplier.

    Essentially the increase in the implied value of their final salary pension exceeds the £10,000 allowance that normal high earners get. Consequently they are asked to pay the penal tax rates for over contribution that any ordinary individual in this position would have to.

    Instead they are kicking up a fuss and asking for special treatment because... because... umm... they are special?
    While I don't disagree with the point you are making Charles the immediate problem needs resolving. It is not the fault of Doctors that civil servants/ministers have screwed up the tax system and public sector pension and pay such that there is no incentive to work by effectively paying nothing for the extra work done.
    The issue is that their pension scheme is way more generous than the private sector and it throws everything out of balance

    That’s the fix that needs to be done...
    The tapered AA needs removing - like the previous nightmare version of it that Brown briefly had & which was similarly overly complex and ineffective
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    Charles said:

    kjh said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    This doctors' shortage due to pension arrangements looks like it could be easily fixed so it is surprising neither leadership candidate has mentioned the issue.

    I suspect this would get less sympathy with the general public
    Yes, the rate can exceed 100%, but generally it is just short of 100%.

    The practical issue is that this is a tax bill as a result of pension growth, but having to be paid from current income. The bill doesn't come until 6 months after the tax year ends so can be difficult to plan for.

    It covers all income, including private practice, so that is being cut back too, not just NHS work.

    I have stopped doing extra shifts myself. I do not expect sympathy as it is a problem only for those with incomes over £110 000, but there are a lot of cancelled sessions over the summer, impossible to cover. Cancelled operations are in the news, but staffing Intensive Care and Emergency Dept is problematic too.
    The upper tax rate is 40 or 45pc (I forget which; I'll never reach it) - enough of the nonsense.
    Not true, the marginal rate is 60% between £106-126 000, due to withdrawal of the personal allowance. The pensions taper has the same effect of increasing the marginal rate to nearly 100% (and occasionally more) if part of the pensions scheme.

    I know, because I pay both!
    Well I didn't know the personal allowance got withdrawn. Pensions schmenions.

    Don't worry when I'm world king your marginal tax will only be 49 (or 49.5)pc.
    Beaten to it by Foxy. I'm not sure where £106,000 came from. It should be £100,000 unless I have missed something. You also need to take into account the upper band of NI of 2% which is in effect Income Tax by any other name.

    I appreciate there will not be a lot of sympathy for people in these income brackets, but equally you can't expect them to work for nothing.

    Marginal rates are a mess:

    Tax = 0%, 20%, 40%, 60%, 40%, 45%
    NI = 0%, 12%(ish), 2%

    When you add those two together you are all over the place going up and down rather than always up as you go up in income.
    The big issue is the withdrawal of the personal allowance (which also sticks in the throat most). That causes the 40-60-40 bump

    Another if Gordon Brown’s cunning plans

    They should reinstate it and fund it by increasing the rate by 1% (or whatever) above £100k
    Darling not Brown but in any case, the real problem is the tapered annual allowance for pensions which was George Osborne's baby.
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,059
    In all the fuss over the annual allowance problems - the other one in the NHS is all those members who are breaching the Lifetime Allowance too and where they are financially incentivised to retire early.... as many are doing in my own experience.

    Part of that is the stupidity that taking a DB pension at 55 or 75, is valued the same for the LTA test...
  • El_CapitanoEl_Capitano Posts: 3,870
    Heck sausages are grim. They're slightly better than Richmond but any competent supermarket has much better own-brand stuff, let alone your average butcher.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,069

    Charles said:

    Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    This doctors' shortage due to pension arrangements looks like it could be easily fixed so it is surprising neither leadership candidate has mentioned the issue.

    I’m confused that doctors are saying they “can’t afford” to work the extra hours

    I understand that there are very high marginal rates of tax if they do (because they have maxed out their pensions)

    Are these greater than 100%?

    If not then they *can* afford to, but they would rather do something else with their time.

    I suspect this would get less sympathy with the general public
    Yes, the rate can exceed 100%, but generally it is just short of 100%.

    The practical issue is that this is a tax bill as a result of pension growth, but having to be paid from current income. The bill doesn't come until 6 months after the tax year ends so can be difficult to plan for.

    It covers all income, including private practice, so that is being cut back too, not just NHS work.

    I have stopped doing extra shifts myself. I do not expect sympathy as it is a problem only for those with incomes over £110 000, but there are a lot of cancelled sessions over the summer, impossible to cover. Cancelled operations are in the news, but staffing Intensive Care and Emergency Dept is problematic too.
    The upper tax rate is 40 or 45pc (I forget which; I'll never reach it) - enough of the nonsense.
    It’s to do with the fact that they have a great pension scheme (paid for by you) with a very attractive multiplier.

    Essentially the increase in the implied value of their final salary pension exceeds the £10,000 allowance that normal high earners get. Consequently they are asked to pay the penal tax rates for over contribution that any ordinary individual in this position would have to.

    Instead they are kicking up a fuss and asking for special treatment because... because... umm... they are special?
    Only those with "adjusted income" of over £210k have the flat £10k allowance those below have a ridiculously complicated position as to what their annual allowance is and most will only know what that is AFTER the tax year has ended.
    For those genuinely interested in the issue, and why it has become a problem, Steve Webb, one of many excellent LibDem ministers in the Coalition has published this. Some of the other topics he covers may have wider interest. Personally, I am enjoying my reduced hours, on the same income.

    https://twitter.com/stevewebb1/status/1148131879536738304?s=19
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,232
    Brendan has proposed his manifesto to implement democracy in the UK.

    https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/07/08/democracy-the-unfinished-revolution/

    The PR one is most interesting. The aim is obviously to get his friends in TBP the maximum amount of seats. I wonder what version of PR he will suggest.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,749

    Charles said:

    Foxy said:

    I always think of Luntz as that guy who ran a newsnight focus group that tipped Cameron when he was an outsider. So I pay attention to him but I don't bet on American politics.

    Quite what the tories saw in his sub-blairism at that stage I don't know.

    Election victory? Cameron is the only Tory leader to win a majority in a quarter century. Being pure and in opposition, the novelty wears off fairly quickly.
    What about Blair?
    Haha - touche - he get's blamed for Iraq shenanigans but if the Union does break up it will be almost entirely his fault.
    His role in the history of the dissolution of the Union is significant, but the responsibility is hardly “almost entirely” his fault.

    The disassembly if the Union got going during the late Victorian era, and thus spans well over a century now. It is an extremely common historiographical error to ascribe over-significance to recent phenomena. Many, many PMs have contributed to the downfall of the Union.

    Blair’s key contribution was arrogance: he didn’t need to listen to Donald Dewar so he chose not to. It was Blair’s tinkering about with Dewar’s/Cook’s/Brown’s/Steel’s/Campbell’s/Wright’s/et al’s blueprint that crippled devolution from day one. He knew nothing, and cared nothing, for their Claim of Right and the long years of hard work in the Constitutional Convention.

    Blair threw out the one plan that, at this late stage, might just have saved the Union.

    Ta Tony!
    Asymmetrical devolution is what that lot were asking for (I think, I was only young and have only read one book on the matter) and Blair gave it to them.

    The Union ain't dead yet though!
    Great to have an informed view.

    On your 'asymmetrical devolution' point, is your conclusion that as long as English voters show absolutely no collective view on English devolution or a desire for it (the situation then and now), that other members of this union should shut up and accept the the default system?

    In fact our oncoming overlord thinks the English are perfectly adequately served as things stand.

    https://twitter.com/Zarkwan/status/1145368839481434113
  • kjhkjh Posts: 10,458

    kjh said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    This doctors' shortage due to pension arrangements looks like it could be easily fixed so it is surprising neither leadership candidate has mentioned the issue.

    .
    The upper tax rate is 40 or 45pc (I forget which; I'll never reach it) - enough of the nonsense.
    Not true, the marginal rate is 60% between £106-126 000, due to withdrawal of the personal allowance. The pensions taper has the same effect of increasing the marginal rate to nearly 100% (and occasionally more) if part of the pensions scheme.

    I know, because I pay both!
    Well I didn't know the personal allowance got withdrawn. Pensions schmenions.

    Don't worry when I'm world king your marginal tax will only be 49 (or 49.5)pc.
    Beaten to it by Foxy. I'm not sure where £106,000 came from. It should be £100,000 unless I have missed something. You also need to take into account the upper band of NI of 2% which is in effect Income Tax by any other name.

    I appreciate there will not be a lot of sympathy for people in these income brackets, but equally you can't expect them to work for nothing.

    Marginal rates are a mess:

    Tax = 0%, 20%, 40%, 60%, 40%, 45%
    NI = 0%, 12%(ish), 2%

    When you add those two together you are all over the place going up and down rather than always up as you go up in income.
    plus the marginal rates of tax depending on how many children you have as your income goes from £50k to £60k and child benefit is lost.
    And the consequential bureaucracy. We received a letter this year re child benefit (which we don't claim) the wording of which was along the lines of - You don't claim child benefit. The child benefit you don't claim is being increased from April (!). From September the child benefit you don't claim is being removed. The latter is because of my daughters age although it never said that. It was a bunch of gobbledegook with no explanation and of no benefit. Just garbage. Fortunately I knew why, but for anyone who didn't the letter provided no useful benefit whatsoever.
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,059


    For those genuinely interested in the issue, and why it has become a problem, Steve Webb, one of many excellent LibDem ministers in the Coalition has published this. Some of the other topics he covers may have wider interest. Personally, I am enjoying my reduced hours, on the same income.

    https://twitter.com/stevewebb1/status/1148131879536738304?s=19


    He's brilliant!

    You aren't alone - not so much pensions related but the personal allowance 62% trap, if you are on say £120k pa and paying 62%, then going 4-days a week (if you can) is a financial no-brainer too OR if you are close to 55 or above, putting the excess in to a pension and retiring earlier!
  • kjhkjh Posts: 10,458
    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    This doctors' shortage due to pension arrangements looks like it could be easily fixed so it is surprising neither leadership candidate has mentioned the issue.

    .
    The upper tax rate is 40 or 45pc (I forget which; I'll never reach it) - enough of the nonsense.
    Not true, the marginal rate is 60% between £106-126 000, due to withdrawal of the personal allowance. The pensions taper has the same effect of increasing the marginal rate to nearly 100% (and occasionally more) if part of the pensions scheme.

    I know, because I pay both!
    Well I didn't know the personal allowance got withdrawn. Pensions schmenions.

    Don't worry when I'm world king your marginal tax will only be 49 (or 49.5)pc.
    Beaten to it by Foxy. I'm not sure where £106,000 came from. It should be £100,000 unless I have missed something. You also need to take into account the upper band of NI of 2% which is in effect Income Tax by any other name.

    I appreciate there will not be a lot of sympathy for people in these income brackets, but equally you can't expect them to work for nothing.

    Marginal rates are a mess:

    Tax = 0%, 20%, 40%, 60%, 40%, 45%
    NI = 0%, 12%(ish), 2%

    When you add those two together you are all over the place going up and down rather than always up as you go up in income.
    plus the marginal rates of tax depending on how many children you have as your income goes from £50k to £60k and child benefit is lost.
    And the consequential bureaucracy. We received a letter this year re child benefit (which we don't claim) the wording of which was along the lines of - You don't claim child benefit. The child benefit you don't claim is being increased from April (!). From September the child benefit you don't claim is being removed. The latter is because of my daughters age although it never said that. It was a bunch of gobbledegook with no explanation and of no benefit. Just garbage. Fortunately I knew why, but for anyone who didn't the letter provided no useful benefit whatsoever.
    Bugger - cocked up the quotes. Sorry Scrapheap.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,069

    In all the fuss over the annual allowance problems - the other one in the NHS is all those members who are breaching the Lifetime Allowance too and where they are financially incentivised to retire early.... as many are doing in my own experience.

    Part of that is the stupidity that taking a DB pension at 55 or 75, is valued the same for the LTA test...

    One of the other options for folk like me is to retire, take the pension and return to work. The Pensions taper has created lots of jobs!

  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,059
    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    This doctors' shortage due to pension arrangements looks like it could be easily fixed so it is surprising neither leadership candidate has mentioned the issue.

    .
    The upper tax rate is 40 or 45pc (I forget which; I'll never reach it) - enough of the nonsense.
    Not true, the marginal rate is 60% between £106-126 000, due to withdrawal of the personal allowance. The pensions taper has the same effect of increasing the marginal rate to nearly 100% (and occasionally more) if part of the pensions scheme.

    I know, because I pay both!
    Well I didn't know the personal allowance got withdrawn. Pensions schmenions.

    Don't worry when I'm world king your marginal tax will only be 49 (or 49.5)pc.
    Beaten to it by Foxy. I'm not sure where £106,000 came from. It should be £100,000 unless I have missed something. You also need to take into account the upper band of NI of 2% which is in effect Income Tax by any other name.

    I appreciate there will not be a lot of sympathy for people in these income brackets, but equally you can't expect them to work for nothing.

    Marginal rates are a mess:

    Tax = 0%, 20%, 40%, 60%, 40%, 45%
    NI = 0%, 12%(ish), 2%

    When you add those two together you are all over the place going up and down rather than always up as you go up in income.
    plus the marginal rates of tax depending on how many children you have as your income goes from £50k to £60k and child benefit is lost.
    And the consequential bureaucracy. We received a letter this year re child benefit (which we don't claim) the wording of which was along the lines of - You don't claim child benefit. The child benefit you don't claim is being increased from April (!). From September the child benefit you don't claim is being removed. The latter is because of my daughters age although it never said that. It was a bunch of gobbledegook with no explanation and of no benefit. Just garbage. Fortunately I knew why, but for anyone who didn't the letter provided no useful benefit whatsoever.
    Bugger - cocked up the quotes. Sorry Scrapheap.
    I get the same pointless letter re child tax credits....
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Seems like this taxation nonsense is a rare area of consensus across the board.
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,059
    Foxy said:

    In all the fuss over the annual allowance problems - the other one in the NHS is all those members who are breaching the Lifetime Allowance too and where they are financially incentivised to retire early.... as many are doing in my own experience.

    Part of that is the stupidity that taking a DB pension at 55 or 75, is valued the same for the LTA test...

    One of the other options for folk like me is to retire, take the pension and return to work. The Pensions taper has created lots of jobs!

    Exactly - the LTA is more the issue there though than the taper.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 10,458
    Charles said:

    kjh said:

    Charles said:

    Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    This doctors' shortage due to pension arrangements looks like it could be easily fixed so it is surprising neither leadership candidate has mentioned the issue.

    I’m confused that doctors are saying they “can’t afford” to work the extra hours

    I understand that there are very high marginal rates of tax if they do (because they have maxed out their pensions)

    Are these greater than 100%?

    If not then they *can* afford to, but they would rather do something else with their time.

    I suspect this would get less sympathy with the general public
    Yes, the rate can exceed 100%, but generally it is just short of 100%.

    The practical issue is that this is a tax bill as a result of pension growth, but having to be paid from current income. The bill doesn't come until 6 months after the tax year ends so can be difficult to plan for.

    It covers all income, including private practice, so that is being cut back too, not just NHS work.

    I have stopped doing extra shifts myself. I do not expect sympathy as it is a problem only for those with incomes over £110 000, but there are a lot of cancelled sessions over the summer, impossible to cover. Cancelled operations are in the news, but staffing Intensive Care and Emergency Dept is problematic too.
    The upper tax rate is 40 or 45pc (I forget which; I'll never reach it) - enough of the nonsense.
    It’s to do with the fact that they have a great pension scheme (paid for by you) with a very attractive multiplier.

    Essentially the increase in the implied value of their final salary pension exceeds the £10,000 allowance that normal high earners get. Consequently they are asked to pay the penal tax rates for over contribution that any ordinary individual in this position would have to.

    Instead they are kicking up a fuss and asking for special treatment because... because... umm... they are special?
    While I don't disagree with the point you are making Charles the immediate problem needs resolving. It is not the fault of Doctors that civil servants/ministers have screwed up the tax system and public sector pension and pay such that there is no incentive to work by effectively paying nothing for the extra work done.
    The issue is that their pension scheme is way more generous than the private sector and it throws everything out of balance

    That’s the fix that needs to be done...
    Agree
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146

    Charles said:

    Foxy said:

    I always think of Luntz as that guy who ran a newsnight focus group that tipped Cameron when he was an outsider. So I pay attention to him but I don't bet on American politics.

    Quite what the tories saw in his sub-blairism at that stage I don't know.

    Election victory? Cameron is the only Tory leader to win a majority in a quarter century. Being pure and in opposition, the novelty wears off fairly quickly.
    What about Blair?
    Haha - touche - he get's blamed for Iraq shenanigans but if the Union does break up it will be almost entirely his fault.
    His role in the history of the dissolution of the Union is significant, but the responsibility is hardly “almost entirely” his fault.

    The disassembly if the Union got going during the late Victorian era, and thus spans well over a century now. It is an extremely common historiographical error to ascribe over-significance to recent phenomena. Many, many PMs have contributed to the downfall of the Union.

    Blair’s key contribution was arrogance: he didn’t need to listen to Donald Dewar so he chose not to. It was Blair’s tinkering about with Dewar’s/Cook’s/Brown’s/Steel’s/Campbell’s/Wright’s/et al’s blueprint that crippled devolution from day one. He knew nothing, and cared nothing, for their Claim of Right and the long years of hard work in the Constitutional Convention.

    Blair threw out the one plan that, at this late stage, might just have saved the Union.

    Ta Tony!
    Asymmetrical devolution is what that lot were asking for (I think, I was only young and have only read one book on the matter) and Blair gave it to them.

    The Union ain't dead yet though!
    No, just on its death bed.

    Here’s an idea: before opining about Tony Blair “... if the Union does break up it will be almost entirely his fault”, it might be an idea to read more than one book, especially if you were only a bairn at the time.

    There are many fine academic and popular accounts of the history of the Scottish self-government movement. Your librarian may be able to help.
  • Charles said:

    Foxy said:

    I always think of Luntz as that guy who ran a newsnight focus group that tipped Cameron when he was an outsider. So I pay attention to him but I don't bet on American politics.

    Quite what the tories saw in his sub-blairism at that stage I don't know.

    Election victory? Cameron is the only Tory leader to win a majority in a quarter century. Being pure and in opposition, the novelty wears off fairly quickly.
    What about Blair?
    Haha - touche - he get's blamed for Iraq shenanigans but if the Union does break up it will be almost entirely his fault.
    His role in the history of the dissolution of the Union is significant, but the responsibility is hardly “almost entirely” his fault.

    The disassembly if the Union got going during the late Victorian era, and thus spans well over a century now. It is an extremely common historiographical error to ascribe over-significance to recent phenomena. Many, many PMs have contributed to the downfall of the Union.

    Blair’s key contribution was arrogance: he didn’t need to listen to Donald Dewar so he chose not to. It was Blair’s tinkering about with Dewar’s/Cook’s/Brown’s/Steel’s/Campbell’s/Wright’s/et al’s blueprint that crippled devolution from day one. He knew nothing, and cared nothing, for their Claim of Right and the long years of hard work in the Constitutional Convention.

    Blair threw out the one plan that, at this late stage, might just have saved the Union.

    Ta Tony!
    Asymmetrical devolution is what that lot were asking for (I think, I was only young and have only read one book on the matter) and Blair gave it to them.

    The Union ain't dead yet though!
    Great to have an informed view.

    On your 'asymmetrical devolution' point, is your conclusion that as long as English voters show absolutely no collective view on English devolution or a desire for it (the situation then and now), that other members of this union should shut up and accept the the default system?

    In fact our oncoming overlord thinks the English are perfectly adequately served as things stand.

    https://twitter.com/Zarkwan/status/1145368839481434113
    My conclusion on Asymmetrical Devolution is the same as when I was young - It is bloody stupid. And so it has proved.

    I'm for dissolving the Scottish Parliament.
  • Charles said:

    Foxy said:

    I always think of Luntz as that guy who ran a newsnight focus group that tipped Cameron when he was an outsider. So I pay attention to him but I don't bet on American politics.

    Quite what the tories saw in his sub-blairism at that stage I don't know.

    Election victory? Cameron is the only Tory leader to win a majority in a quarter century. Being pure and in opposition, the novelty wears off fairly quickly.
    What about Blair?
    Haha - touche - he get's blamed for Iraq shenanigans but if the Union does break up it will be almost entirely his fault.
    His role in the history of the dissolution of the Union is significant, but the responsibility is hardly “almost entirely” his fault.

    The disassembly if the Union got going during the late Victorian era, and thus spans well over a century now. It is an extremely common historiographical error to ascribe over-significance to recent phenomena. Many, many PMs have contributed to the downfall of the Union.

    Blair’s key contribution was arrogance: he didn’t need to listen to Donald Dewar so he chose not to. It was Blair’s tinkering about with Dewar’s/Cook’s/Brown’s/Steel’s/Campbell’s/Wright’s/et al’s blueprint that crippled devolution from day one. He knew nothing, and cared nothing, for their Claim of Right and the long years of hard work in the Constitutional Convention.

    Blair threw out the one plan that, at this late stage, might just have saved the Union.

    Ta Tony!
    Asymmetrical devolution is what that lot were asking for (I think, I was only young and have only read one book on the matter) and Blair gave it to them.

    The Union ain't dead yet though!
    No, just on its death bed.

    Here’s an idea: before opining about Tony Blair “... if the Union does break up it will be almost entirely his fault”, it might be an idea to read more than one book, especially if you were only a bairn at the time.

    There are many fine academic and popular accounts of the history of the Scottish self-government movement. Your librarian may be able to help.
    Thanks for the tip but it was a good book and I got the gist - as you and Uniondivvie are helping me prove
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,575

    Heck sausages are grim. They're slightly better than Richmond but any competent supermarket has much better own-brand stuff, let alone your average butcher.
    They are utterly brilliant for meat eaters with serious food intolerances. There is really no other alternative.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,069
    kjh said:

    Charles said:

    kjh said:

    Charles said:

    Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    This doctors' shortage due to pension arrangements looks like it could be easily fixed so it is surprising neither leadership candidate has mentioned the issue.

    I’m confused that c
    Yes, the rate can exceed 100%, but generally it is just short of 100%.

    The practical issue is that this is a tax bill as a result of pension growth, but having to be paid from current income. The bill doesn't come until 6 months after the tax year ends so can be difficult to plan for.

    It covers all income, including private practice, so that is being cut back too, not just NHS work.

    I have stopped doing extra shifts myself. I do not expect sympathy as it is a problem only for those with incomes over £110 000, but there are a lot of cancelled sessions over the summer, impossible to cover. Cancelled operations are in the news, but staffing Intensive Care and Emergency Dept is problematic too.
    The upper tax rate is 40 or 45pc (I forget which; I'll never reach it) - enough of the nonsense.
    It’s to do with the fact that they have a great pension scheme (paid for by you) with a very attractive multiplier.

    Essentially the increase in the implied value of their final salary pension exceeds the £10,000 allowance that normal high earners get. Consequently they are asked to pay the penal tax rates for over contribution that any ordinary individual in this position would have to.

    Instead they are kicking up a fuss and asking for special treatment because... because... umm... they are special?
    While I don't disagree with the point you are making Charles the immediate problem needs resolving. It is not the fault of Doctors that civil servants/ministers have screwed up the tax system and public sector pension and pay such that there is no incentive to work by effectively paying nothing for the extra work done.
    The issue is that their pension scheme is way more generous than the private sector and it throws everything out of balance

    That’s the fix that needs to be done...
    Agree
    Though that is likely to worsen the exodus!

    One little wrinkle to this whole issue is that the Employers contribution rate to NHS superannuation has increased to 20% this year. As 70% of NHS costs are staff related, this means a bigger financial squeeze on Trusts. Several Trusts are now looking at giving a payrise to those who opt out of NHS pensions in lieu of this.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,840
    Is Liam Fox unique in having been driven sensible by Brexit?
  • TabmanTabman Posts: 1,046
    dixiedean said:

    Is Liam Fox unique in having been driven sensible by Brexit?

    I have heard a rumour that when Fox was briefed by civil servants on the disaster in the making that is Brexit, his reaction was along the lines of "it'll be a train wreck but we have no option but to go along with it given the vote"
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,575
    dixiedean said:

    Is Liam Fox unique in having been driven sensible by Brexit?

    An interesting question. I was also pleasantly surprised by his comments on the ambassador furore.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540

    Charles said:

    Foxy said:

    I always think of Luntz as that guy who ran a newsnight focus group that tipped Cameron when he was an outsider. So I pay attention to him but I don't bet on American politics.

    Quite what the tories saw in his sub-blairism at that stage I don't know.

    Election victory? Cameron is the only Tory leader to win a majority in a quarter century. Being pure and in opposition, the novelty wears off fairly quickly.
    What about Blair?
    Haha - touche - he get's blamed for Iraq shenanigans but if the Union does break up it will be almost entirely his fault.
    His role in the history of the dissolution of the Union is significant, but the responsibility is hardly “almost entirely” his fault.

    The disassembly if the Union got going during the late Victorian era, and thus spans well over a century now. It is an extremely common historiographical error to ascribe over-significance to recent phenomena. Many, many PMs have contributed to the downfall of the Union.

    Blair’s key contribution was arrogance: he didn’t need to listen to Donald Dewar so he chose not to. It was Blair’s tinkering about with Dewar’s/Cook’s/Brown’s/Steel’s/Campbell’s/Wright’s/et al’s blueprint that crippled devolution from day one. He knew nothing, and cared nothing, for their Claim of Right and the long years of hard work in the Constitutional Convention.

    Blair threw out the one plan that, at this late stage, might just have saved the Union.

    Ta Tony!
    Asymmetrical devolution is what that lot were asking for (I think, I was only young and have only read one book on the matter) and Blair gave it to them.

    The Union ain't dead yet though!
    No, just on its death bed.
    Bit like Mark Twain then.......

    It may seem unfair that having voted in a majority against Brexit, Scotland should be outvoted by the rest of the UK and then find that vote had increased the cost of it becoming independent. That, however, is the position in which Scotland finds itself and no amount of obfuscation or complaint from the Scottish government will change it.

    https://www.ft.com/content/12dffac8-69e4-11e6-ae5b-a7cc5dd5a28c
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146

    HYUFD said:


    You're probably right that Scottish Independence might save Labour from dodo territory, but don't mix up cause and effect. Labour switching to back independence may allow them to fish from the same pool of voters the SNP and Greence currently monopolise but it won't bring Labour voters over to back independence . . . since there are no Labor voters worth mentioning to bring over. That's the issue.

    Do you really think the reason the SNP and Greens and others backing Indy failed last time was becase they lacked the genius that is SLAB?

    Better Together succeeded in part because they had SLab foot soldiers knocking on pensioners' doors with bad tidings. I believe even David L. of this parish donned a Labour badge for some 'campaigning'. I'm as sure as I am that the sun will rise tomorrow that no supporter of the Labour party put on a SCon badge to do his bit for the Union.
    You’re wasting your time trying to explain it to them. They clearly haven’t the foggiest idea why No won the 2014 referendum, therefore they come up with the most bizarre theories about how they might win IndyRef2. This cheers me tremendously. Lunatics are in charge of the asylum.
    Labour managed to lose half the central belt to Yes in 2014, including Glasgow, those who stayed are committed Unionists anyway. The rest of the No vote was made up of Tory pensioners in rural areas and middle class LDs in cities like Edinburgh
    I'm gonna love Better Together II being labelled as a Tory project, with the distinct possibility of optimistic Boris doing photo ops with haggises.
    Better Together II will be a Tory project. Yes, there will be some cling-ons from the Orange Lodges, UKIP, Brexit Party, football thugs, BNP and other assorted fruitcakes, but the other serious Unionist parties won’t touch it with a shitty stick.

    Scottish Labour made it clear yesterday that they will not be joining Better Together II, which now guarantees that the SLDs will have to follow suit. Rennie could have stomached it with SLab cover, but the wee feartie will never take the flak alone.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,575
    edited July 2019
    Meanwhile, the Trump presidency has Australia considering developing an independent nuclear deterrent...
    https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2019/07/08/asia-pacific/politics-diplomacy-asia-pacific/facing-shaky-u-s-alliance-assertive-china-australia-debates-nuclear-deterrent/

    ...until now Canberra always decided that the price was too high, the risks were low and Washington had its back.

    But Trump’s capricious temperament means half a century of policy could change with a single tweet.

    Meanwhile, the threat outlook has changed...
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,136

    Seems like this taxation nonsense is a rare area of consensus across the board.

    I think all reasonable people can agree that Gordon Brown was a terrible chancellor and an excellent Prime Minister.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    dixiedean said:

    Is Liam Fox unique in having been driven sensible by Brexit?

    It's certainly a rare phenomenon......
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Tokyo, you leg-pulling tinker, you.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,840
    Nigelb said:

    dixiedean said:

    Is Liam Fox unique in having been driven sensible by Brexit?

    An interesting question. I was also pleasantly surprised by his comments on the ambassador furore.
    That was the immediate catalyst for my comment. But it got me thinking that he has made a number of non-bonkers statements recently.
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,704

    Seems like this taxation nonsense is a rare area of consensus across the board.

    I think all reasonable people can agree that Gordon Brown was a terrible chancellor and an excellent Prime Minister.
    No they can't.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146

    Charles said:

    Foxy said:

    I always think of Luntz as that guy who ran a newsnight focus group that tipped Cameron when he was an outsider. So I pay attention to him but I don't bet on American politics.

    Quite what the tories saw in his sub-blairism at that stage I don't know.

    Election victory? Cameron is the only Tory leader to win a majority in a quarter century. Being pure and in opposition, the novelty wears off fairly quickly.
    What about Blair?
    Haha - touche - he get's blamed for Iraq shenanigans but if the Union does break up it will be almost entirely his fault.
    His role in the history of the dissolution of the Union is significant, but the responsibility is hardly “almost entirely” his fault.

    The disassembly if the Union got going during the late Victorian era, and thus spans well over a century now. It is an extremely common historiographical error to ascribe over-significance to recent phenomena. Many, many PMs have contributed to the downfall of the Union.

    Blair’s key contribution was arrogance: he didn’t need to listen to Donald Dewar so he chose not to. It was Blair’s tinkering about with Dewar’s/Cook’s/Brown’s/Steel’s/Campbell’s/Wright’s/et al’s blueprint that crippled devolution from day one. He knew nothing, and cared nothing, for their Claim of Right and the long years of hard work in the Constitutional Convention.

    Blair threw out the one plan that, at this late stage, might just have saved the Union.

    Ta Tony!
    Asymmetrical devolution is what that lot were asking for (I think, I was only young and have only read one book on the matter) and Blair gave it to them.

    The Union ain't dead yet though!
    No, just on its death bed.
    Bit like Mark Twain then.......

    It may seem unfair that having voted in a majority against Brexit, Scotland should be outvoted by the rest of the UK and then find that vote had increased the cost of it becoming independent. That, however, is the position in which Scotland finds itself and no amount of obfuscation or complaint from the Scottish government will change it.

    https://www.ft.com/content/12dffac8-69e4-11e6-ae5b-a7cc5dd5a28c
    Typical Tory: revelling over how amusing it is with built-in unfairness.

    I’m not sure whether you’ve noticed, but Brexit hasn’t happened yet. And it’s above EVS that it’ll happen this year either.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,749

    Charles said:

    Foxy said:

    I always think of Luntz as that guy who ran a newsnight focus group that tipped Cameron when he was an outsider. So I pay attention to him but I don't bet on American politics.

    Quite what the tories saw in his sub-blairism at that stage I don't know.

    Election victory? Cameron is the only Tory leader to win a majority in a quarter century. Being pure and in opposition, the novelty wears off fairly quickly.
    What about Blair?
    Haha - touche - he get's blamed for Iraq shenanigans but if the Union does break up it will be almost entirely his fault.
    His role in the history of the dissolution of the Union is significant, but the responsibility is hardly “almost entirely” his fault.

    The disassembly if the Union got going during the late Victorian era, and thus spans well over a century now. It is an extremely common historiographical error to ascribe over-significance to recent phenomena. Many, many PMs have contributed to the downfall of the Union.

    Blair’s key contribution was arrogance: he didn’t need to listen to Donald Dewar so he chose not to. It was Blair’s tinkering about with Dewar’s/Cook’s/Brown’s/Steel’s/Campbell’s/Wright’s/et al’s blueprint that crippled devolution from day one. He knew nothing, and cared nothing, for their Claim of Right and the long years of hard work in the Constitutional Convention.

    Blair threw out the one plan that, at this late stage, might just have saved the Union.

    Ta Tony!
    Asymmetrical devolution is what that lot were asking for (I think, I was only young and have only read one book on the matter) and Blair gave it to them.

    The Union ain't dead yet though!
    No, just on its death bed.
    Bit like Mark Twain then.......

    It may seem unfair that having voted in a majority against Brexit, Scotland should be outvoted by the rest of the UK and then find that vote had increased the cost of it becoming independent. That, however, is the position in which Scotland finds itself and no amount of obfuscation or complaint from the Scottish government will change it.

    https://www.ft.com/content/12dffac8-69e4-11e6-ae5b-a7cc5dd5a28c
    August 2016 eh?
    I wonder what the subsequent cost analysis of staying in Brexit UK comes up with.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789

    Charles said:

    Foxy said:

    I always think of Luntz as that guy who ran a newsnight focus group that tipped Cameron when he was an outsider. So I pay attention to him but I don't bet on American politics.

    Quite what the tories saw in his sub-blairism at that stage I don't know.

    Election victory? Cameron is the only Tory leader to win a majority in a quarter century. Being pure and in opposition, the novelty wears off fairly quickly.
    What about Blair?
    Haha - touche - he get's blamed for Iraq shenanigans but if the Union does break up it will be almost entirely his fault.
    His role in the history of the dissolution of the Union is significant, but the responsibility is hardly “almost entirely” his fault.

    The disassembly if the Union got going during the late Victorian era, and thus spans well over a century now. It is an extremely common historiographical error to ascribe over-significance to recent phenomena. Many, many PMs have contributed to the downfall of the Union.

    Blair’s key contribution was arrogance: he didn’t need to listen to Donald Dewar so he chose not to. It was Blair’s tinkering about with Dewar’s/Cook’s/Brown’s/Steel’s/Campbell’s/Wright’s/et al’s blueprint that crippled devolution from day one. He knew nothing, and cared nothing, for their Claim of Right and the long years of hard work in the Constitutional Convention.

    Blair threw out the one plan that, at this late stage, might just have saved the Union.

    Ta Tony!
    Asymmetrical devolution is what that lot were asking for (I think, I was only young and have only read one book on the matter) and Blair gave it to them.

    The Union ain't dead yet though!
    No, just on its death bed.
    Bit like Mark Twain then.......

    It may seem unfair that having voted in a majority against Brexit, Scotland should be outvoted by the rest of the UK and then find that vote had increased the cost of it becoming independent. That, however, is the position in which Scotland finds itself and no amount of obfuscation or complaint from the Scottish government will change it.

    https://www.ft.com/content/12dffac8-69e4-11e6-ae5b-a7cc5dd5a28c
    A three year old article whose argument rests on the heroic assumption that the UK would successfully leave the single market and customs union...
  • HYUFD said:


    You're probably right that Scottish Independence might save Labour from dodo territory, but don't mix up cause and effect. Labour switching to back independence may allow them to fish from the same pool of voters the SNP and Greence currently monopolise but it won't bring Labour voters over to back independence . . . since there are no Labor voters worth mentioning to bring over. That's the issue.

    Do you really think the reason the SNP and Greens and others backing Indy failed last time was becase they lacked the genius that is SLAB?

    Better Together succeeded in part because they had SLab foot soldiers knocking on pensioners' doors with bad tidings. I believe even David L. of this parish donned a Labour badge for some 'campaigning'. I'm as sure as I am that the sun will rise tomorrow that no supporter of the Labour party put on a SCon badge to do his bit for the Union.
    You’re wasting your time trying to explain it to them. They clearly haven’t the foggiest idea why No won the 2014 referendum, therefore they come up with the most bizarre theories about how they might win IndyRef2. This cheers me tremendously. Lunatics are in charge of the asylum.
    Labour managed to lose half the central belt to Yes in 2014, including Glasgow, those who stayed are committed Unionists anyway. The rest of the No vote was made up of Tory pensioners in rural areas and middle class LDs in cities like Edinburgh
    I'm gonna love Better Together II being labelled as a Tory project, with the distinct possibility of optimistic Boris doing photo ops with haggises.
    Better Together II will be a Tory project. Yes, there will be some cling-ons from the Orange Lodges, UKIP, Brexit Party, football thugs, BNP and other assorted fruitcakes, but the other serious Unionist parties won’t touch it with a shitty stick.

    Scottish Labour made it clear yesterday that they will not be joining Better Together II, which now guarantees that the SLDs will have to follow suit. Rennie could have stomached it with SLab cover, but the wee feartie will never take the flak alone.
    Don't forget to mention Football thugs and BNP in your 'civic nationalism' diatribe. Oh you already have - as you were.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146

    Charles said:

    Foxy said:

    I always think of Luntz as that guy who ran a newsnight focus group that tipped Cameron when he was an outsider. So I pay attention to him but I don't bet on American politics.

    Quite what the tories saw in his sub-blairism at that stage I don't know.

    Election victory? Cameron is the only Tory leader to win a majority in a quarter century. Being pure and in opposition, the novelty wears off fairly quickly.
    What about Blair?
    Haha - touche - he get's blamed for Iraq shenanigans but if the Union does break up it will be almost entirely his fault.
    His role in the history of the dissolution of the Union is significant, but the responsibility is hardly “almost entirely” his fault.

    The disassembly if the Union got going during the late Victorian era, and thus spans well over a century now. It is an extremely common historiographical error to ascribe over-significance to recent phenomena. Many, many PMs have contributed to the downfall of the Union.

    Blair’s key contribution was arrogance: he didn’t need to listen to Donald Dewar so he chose not to. It was Blair’s tinkering about with Dewar’s/Cook’s/Brown’s/Steel’s/Campbell’s/Wright’s/et al’s blueprint that crippled devolution from day one. He knew nothing, and cared nothing, for their Claim of Right and the long years of hard work in the Constitutional Convention.

    Blair threw out the one plan that, at this late stage, might just have saved the Union.

    Ta Tony!
    Asymmetrical devolution is what that lot were asking for (I think, I was only young and have only read one book on the matter) and Blair gave it to them.

    The Union ain't dead yet though!
    Great to have an informed view.

    On your 'asymmetrical devolution' point, is your conclusion that as long as English voters show absolutely no collective view on English devolution or a desire for it (the situation then and now), that other members of this union should shut up and accept the the default system?

    In fact our oncoming overlord thinks the English are perfectly adequately served as things stand.

    https://twitter.com/Zarkwan/status/1145368839481434113
    My conclusion on Asymmetrical Devolution is the same as when I was young - It is bloody stupid. And so it has proved.

    I'm for dissolving the Scottish Parliament.
    I love it when Unionists show their true colours.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,136
    philiph said:

    No they can't.

    When I posted that I know there would be this one contrarian like @philiph saying Brown was an excellent chancellor.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146

    HYUFD said:


    You're probably right that Scottish Independence might save Labour from dodo territory, but don't mix up cause and effect. Labour switching to back independence may allow them to fish from the same pool of voters the SNP and Greence currently monopolise but it won't bring Labour voters over to back independence . . . since there are no Labor voters worth mentioning to bring over. That's the issue.

    Do you really think the reason the SNP and Greens and others backing Indy failed last time was becase they lacked the genius that is SLAB?

    Better Together succeeded in part because they had SLab foot soldiers knocking on pensioners' doors with bad tidings. I believe even David L. of this parish donned a Labour badge for some 'campaigning'. I'm as sure as I am that the sun will rise tomorrow that no supporter of the Labour party put on a SCon badge to do his bit for the Union.
    You’re wasting your time trying to explain it to them. They clearly haven’t the foggiest idea why No won the 2014 referendum, therefore they come up with the most bizarre theories about how they might win IndyRef2. This cheers me tremendously. Lunatics are in charge of the asylum.
    Labour managed to lose half the central belt to Yes in 2014, including Glasgow, those who stayed are committed Unionists anyway. The rest of the No vote was made up of Tory pensioners in rural areas and middle class LDs in cities like Edinburgh
    I'm gonna love Better Together II being labelled as a Tory project, with the distinct possibility of optimistic Boris doing photo ops with haggises.
    Better Together II will be a Tory project. Yes, there will be some cling-ons from the Orange Lodges, UKIP, Brexit Party, football thugs, BNP and other assorted fruitcakes, but the other serious Unionist parties won’t touch it with a shitty stick.

    Scottish Labour made it clear yesterday that they will not be joining Better Together II, which now guarantees that the SLDs will have to follow suit. Rennie could have stomached it with SLab cover, but the wee feartie will never take the flak alone.
    Don't forget to mention Football thugs and BNP in your 'civic nationalism' diatribe. Oh you already have - as you were.
    They are on your side, not mine.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,005
    The Darroch email thing is fascinating. It can only be seen as an act of sabotage.

    A FO minister perhaps?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,575

    Seems like this taxation nonsense is a rare area of consensus across the board.

    I think all reasonable people can agree that Gordon Brown was a terrible chancellor and an excellent Prime Minister.
    Is that an example of the no true Scotsman fallacy ?
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    The Darroch email thing is fascinating. It can only be seen as an act of sabotage.

    A FO minister perhaps?

    https://twitter.com/EmmaKennedy/status/1148128996934205441
  • HYUFD said:


    You're probably right that Scottish Independence might save Labour from dodo territory, but don't mix up cause and effect. Labour switching to back independence may allow them to fish from the same pool of voters the SNP and Greence currently monopolise but it won't bring Labour voters over to back independence . . . since there are no Labor voters worth mentioning to bring over. That's the issue.

    Do you really think the reason the SNP and Greens and others backing Indy failed last time was becase they lacked the genius that is SLAB?

    Better Together succeeded in part because they had SLab foot soldiers knocking on pensioners' doors with bad tidings. I believe even David L. of this parish donned a Labour badge for some 'campaigning'. I'm as sure as I am that the sun will rise tomorrow that no supporter of the Labour party put on a SCon badge to do his bit for the Union.
    You’re wasting your time trying to explain it to them. They clearly haven’t the foggiest idea why No won the 2014 referendum, therefore they come up with the most bizarre theories about how they might win IndyRef2. This cheers me tremendously. Lunatics are in charge of the asylum.
    Labour managed to lose half the central belt to Yes in 2014, including Glasgow, those who stayed are committed Unionists anyway. The rest of the No vote was made up of Tory pensioners in rural areas and middle class LDs in cities like Edinburgh
    I'm gonna love Better Together II being labelled as a Tory project, with the distinct possibility of optimistic Boris doing photo ops with haggises.
    Better Together II will be a Tory project. Yes, there will be some cling-ons from the Orange Lodges, UKIP, Brexit Party, football thugs, BNP and other assorted fruitcakes, but the other serious Unionist parties won’t touch it with a shitty stick.

    Scottish Labour made it clear yesterday that they will not be joining Better Together II, which now guarantees that the SLDs will have to follow suit. Rennie could have stomached it with SLab cover, but the wee feartie will never take the flak alone.
    Don't forget to mention Football thugs and BNP in your 'civic nationalism' diatribe. Oh you already have - as you were.
    They are on your side, not mine.
    Football thugs are on the unionist side are they?

    Gotta love it when Civic Nationalists show their true colours.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,749
    edited July 2019

    Charles said:

    Foxy said:

    I always think of Luntz as that guy who ran a newsnight focus group that tipped Cameron when he was an outsider. So I pay attention to him but I don't bet on American politics.

    Quite what the tories saw in his sub-blairism at that stage I don't know.

    Election victory? Cameron is the only Tory leader to win a majority in a quarter century. Being pure and in opposition, the novelty wears off fairly quickly.
    What about Blair?
    Haha - touche - he get's blamed for Iraq shenanigans but if the Union does break up it will be almost entirely his fault.
    His role in the history of the dissolution of the Union is significant, but the responsibility is hardly “almost entirely” his fault.

    The disassembly if the Union got going during the late Victorian era, and thus spans well over a century now. It is an extremely common historiographical error to ascribe over-significance to recent phenomena. Many, many PMs have contributed to the downfall of the Union.

    Blair’s key contribution was arrogance: he didn’t need to listen to Donald Dewar so he chose not to. It was Blair’s tinkering about with Dewar’s/Cook’s/Brown’s/Steel’s/Campbell’s/Wright’s/et al’s blueprint that crippled devolution from day one. He knew nothing, and cared nothing, for their Claim of Right and the long years of hard work in the Constitutional Convention.

    Blair threw out the one plan that, at this late stage, might just have saved the Union.

    Ta Tony!
    Asymmetrical devolution is what that lot were asking for (I think, I was only young and have only read one book on the matter) and Blair gave it to them.

    The Union ain't dead yet though!
    Great to have an informed view.

    On your 'asymmetrical devolution' point, is your conclusion that as long as English voters show absolutely no collective view on English devolution or a desire for it (the situation then and now), that other members of this union should shut up and accept the the default system?

    In fact our oncoming overlord thinks the English are perfectly adequately served as things stand.

    https://twitter.com/Zarkwan/status/1145368839481434113
    My conclusion on Asymmetrical Devolution is the same as when I was young - It is bloody stupid. And so it has proved.

    I'm for dissolving the Scottish Parliament.
    The Unionist love that dare not speak its name, well done for spekkin it as we say in Aberdeen. If only a few higher profile Unionists were as honest.
  • glwglw Posts: 9,535
    Scott_P said:

    The Darroch email thing is fascinating. It can only be seen as an act of sabotage.

    A FO minister perhaps?

    https://twitter.com/EmmaKennedy/status/1148128996934205441
    No. The emails refer to Trump calling off the attack on Iran, so they are very recent.
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,704

    philiph said:

    No they can't.

    When I posted that I know there would be this one contrarian like @philiph saying Brown was an excellent chancellor.
    No, I was saying I assume you to be a reasonable person. The assertion that he was an excellent PM is one that History and I are waiting to confirm or deny.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,084
    Scott_P said:

    The Darroch email thing is fascinating. It can only be seen as an act of sabotage.

    A FO minister perhaps?

    https://twitter.com/EmmaKennedy/status/1148128996934205441
    Some spad will carry the can
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,165
    glw said:

    Scott_P said:

    The Darroch email thing is fascinating. It can only be seen as an act of sabotage.

    A FO minister perhaps?

    https://twitter.com/EmmaKennedy/status/1148128996934205441
    No. The emails refer to Trump calling off the attack on Iran, so they are very recent.
    Is Twatter spreading fake news?
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,704
    IanB2 said:

    Scott_P said:

    The Darroch email thing is fascinating. It can only be seen as an act of sabotage.

    A FO minister perhaps?

    https://twitter.com/EmmaKennedy/status/1148128996934205441
    Some spad will carry the can
    Makes a change from the normal role carrying the bags.
  • I'm typing, as usual, from Aberdeen. Type in doric all you want - but yeah maybe warn me about it cus it jars written down.
  • glwglw Posts: 9,535
    tlg86 said:

    glw said:

    Scott_P said:

    The Darroch email thing is fascinating. It can only be seen as an act of sabotage.

    A FO minister perhaps?

    https://twitter.com/EmmaKennedy/status/1148128996934205441
    No. The emails refer to Trump calling off the attack on Iran, so they are very recent.
    Is Twatter spreading fake news?
    Well maybe not fake, but Emma Kennedy could have done about 120 seconds of research to dismiss that particular theory.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,575
    glw said:

    Scott_P said:

    The Darroch email thing is fascinating. It can only be seen as an act of sabotage.

    A FO minister perhaps?

    https://twitter.com/EmmaKennedy/status/1148128996934205441
    No. The emails refer to Trump calling off the attack on Iran, so they are very recent.
    All of them ?
    My impression was that the leak was of a number of communications, possibly selected for maximum embarrassment.
This discussion has been closed.