Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The first electoral test following the budget – tonight’s loca
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The first electoral test following the budget – tonight’s local elections
The by-elections held today are the first electoral test of the Budget announced yesterday. Here, for reference, is what happened after the 2016 Budget:
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
There must be some Hamonistas around to cheer you up, right?
Would be worth holding noses on this and getting it through.
"Liberty she pirouhette, when I think that I am free!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-V7cXEddJs
My vague instinct on Waltham Cross judged by nothing more than driving through it fairly regularly is that it won't be Corbyn friendly territory.
Will be close, certainly not nailed on for the Lib Dems.
There must be some procedure to have an election?
Yet another fruitcake in Trump's Government. Trump has really surrounded himself with the scum of the earth!
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/donald-trump-epa-head-global-warming-not-man-made-climate-change-denial-scott-pruitt-a7621271.html
And there are people even here (not many I know) that support Trump - Jeez!
All in all, a poor policy played poorly. Less time thinking up jokes, more time thinking through policy ramifications please Phil.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/03/09/lindzen-responds-to-the-mit-letter-objecting-to-his-petition-to-trump-to-withdraw-from-the-unfcc/
That said I don't consider this to be a broken manifesto pledge. We have a new post Brexit administration in place and I don't believe that they should be bound by the manifesto pledges made by a PM who is no longer even an MP.
Driverless government.
Changes were made to some peoples NI to make it fairer/bring it in line with others... spot the difference
The partisan politics on this one is quite revolting. Hurrah for the MPs that haven't stooped to it.. Labour making a fuss about a progressive tax! They just oppose for oppositions sake
I'm fine with them abandoning the bits that don't work anymore, manifestos are not legally binding and it is not realistic for them to be inflexible even if they are great to start with, but it's a bit much for this government to claim, were it to do so, that they can abandon any pledges willy nilly because the PM has changed.
They need to justify doing so. Brexit provides a reasonable justification in many instances I expect, but it is not a carte Blanche.
Interesting times ahead. Intrigued to see how Australia goes.
That they were not running the campaign does not seem much of a defence to me. Either he believed it and if it was a silly promise then he is silly, or he's a hypocrite, or he didn't notice it was there and he's an idiot, or things have changed. Only the last makes changing position reasonable without undermining themselves too much before.
It's not like the manifestos are created by random number generator - obviously not all MPs will support everything in them, but the leadership will make sure the stuff is acceptable to most of the party to defend.
FFS - this is from wattsupwiththat.com - you know what that is right?
Let's look at a slightly more reputable 'news' channel.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/feb/27/just-who-are-these-300-scientists-telling-trump-to-burn-the-climate.
Jeez - don't know whether to laugh or cry?
2015 Lab 2107 UKIP 1336 Con 1165 LDem 349
2016 Con 814 Lab 811 UKIP 660 LDem 155
He like you is a right-wing ignorant moron!
A PM's mandate does not come from a manifesto or from an election result. It comes from being able to command the support of the majority of the MPs in Parliament. As long as those MPs agree to whatever is being proposed then that is all the mandate a PM needs.
What would be the difference?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen
This is a sensible proposition. It will pass.
Correct me if I'm wrong but when I was somewhat less grey than I am now the system was logical and set up so that the owners of a company (shareholders) paid tax on the company profits at the appropriate rate for their circumstances. A company would pay a dividend and pay Advanced Corporation Tax on that dividend. The shareholder would get a tax credit to set against their tax liability (Dividends being included in the income figure for tax). If they didn't pay tax they would get a refund of the tax credit. If they paid higher rate tax they would pay more. So the dividend part of the company profits were taxed once at the rate applicable to the shareholder. The company would pay Corporation Tax on their profits less the ACT already paid. That ensured that the profits not distributed also got taxed. If the company distributed as dividends more than the profit the ACT would exceed the Corporation Tax and the remainder carried forward.
So appropriate tax paid and just once.
Gordon cynically saw the opportunity to hit the pension funds by not allowing them to reclaim Dividend Tax Credit (set off was still allowed but not refunds). This also hit little old ladies who had little income but a few shares who also couldn't get the refund. The rest of us still did and of course we didn't notice the impact it had on our pension fund until years later.
George promised to right this wrong. He even said he had done so when he abolished Dividend Credits. That was just not true. He just made it such that we all lost our tax credits and so we now had double taxation on company profits. However anyone earning less than £5,000 in dividends didn't get taxed again so for most it was still taxed once.
Philip makes what appears to be a sensible argument that people with large shareholdings or distributing profits from personal companies by way of dividends get a huge tax free chunk. This isn't fair so has reduced it £2,000. That seems very reasonable but when you look at the history then what has really happened is that a huge amount of company profits will now be taxed twice.
We've reached a stage where pretty much any change on anything leads to tantrums and that's all the more dangerous when governments are addicted to vote buying through tax cuts and spending increases.
You're right about the jokes though.
I reckon they would have won seats in England!
It is not your fault that you are thick and poorly educated and have no idea how science works, and I would not usually dream of pointing out those facts; but you really should not call people "morons" and "fruitcakes". Here is a link to a paper by a moronic fruitcake who seriously entertains the notion that "The case against science is straightforward: much of the
scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue". The moronic fruitcake is editor-in-chief of the Lancet, of which you may have heard. His remarks are not confined to medical science, and in any case medical science is much, much easier than climate science because medical science can look at millions and millions of examples of the system they are studying, and climate scientists only have the one; and the incentives to arrive at a pre-ordained result are at least as strong in climate science as in medicine.