The UK Politics Thread [Wot did Jez do now...]

[phonics]

No that's a second 'exclusive' he wrote off that tweet.

By the way this whole story came from the same bloke as the '1 in 5 muzzos love the terrorists' sotry that they had to back off from.

[Lewis]

'What about you, Paul? Do you still play football?'
'Oh. No. I run a Twitter account now that tracks tabloid corrections.'

[GS]

Voting against English Sunday shopping laws is seriously shitebag behaviour from SNP MPs.

Although it's some genuinely backwards shit that there are laws against that in the first place.

They're required, by virtue of being Scottish, to cause as much trouble for the Tories as possible to demonstrate their anti-Tory credentials the "the 45".

Although I agree with Jim - the trading restrictions should remain in place so there's at least one day a week which isn't given over to rampant consumerist cuntery.

[Reg]

According to the World Health Organisation, the UK doesn't have an NHS. http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/terrifyingly-according-to-the-world-health-organisation-definition-the-uk-no-longer-has-a-nhs-a6923126.html

[Toby]

They're required, by virtue of being Scottish, to cause as much trouble for the Tories as possible to demonstrate their anti-Tory credentials the "the 45".

Voting on anything that only affects English voters makes them cunts, and worse still cunts who've gone back on their word. They can claim it affects Scottish companies, but if Scottish companies were so badly affected by the English having different laws it would hardly set a great precedent for independence. It's just shitehawk behaviour that's only really explained by what Lewis says.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Angus Robertson is basically the leader of the opposition at the moment (vying for that post with Boris Johnson). It's a sorry state of affairs.

[GS]

The SNP are building another case for independence on the back of a 9.7% GDP deficit.

Another round of this distracting from REAL GOVERNING, then. Christ.

[Toby]

I'm sure as a Northern Irish Unionist you have extensive knowledge of Scottish local governance.

[GS]

I know it's a virtual one party state where the governing party run on what amounts to an anti-English ticket and unsustainable promises based on spending increases and no tax increases, except for the inexhaustible mountain of wealth represented by rich people, big business and the closure of tax loopholes. And $120 a barrel.

[Toby]

:harold:

[GS]

Independence may come, but that cannot be under the SNP - a party whose leaders would sell the Scottish people out in their quest for the personal glory of leading the Scots to FREEDDOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMMMM.

Their economic arguments are clearly completely bollocks as well, so you can throw :harold: around all you want but your conversion to the cause demonstrates, if nothing else, that even supposedly sensible people can be duped if the promises are big enough and the denouncements of 'naysayers' aggressive enough.

[Toby]

Independence may come, but that cannot be under the SNP - a party whose leaders would sell the Scottish people out in their quest for the personal glory of leading the Scots to FREEDDOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMMMM.

Their economic arguments are clearly completely bollocks as well, so you can throw :harold: around all you want but your conversion to the cause demonstrates, if nothing else, that even supposedly sensible people can be duped if the promises are big enough and the denouncements of 'naysayers' aggressive enough.

Denouncing from the other side is just as "aggressive", with supposedly sensible people there accepting brain dead nonsense like the suggestion Scotland is a "one party state". I mean, really. At least try to pretend you recognise a nuanced argument.

[phonics]

GS moaning about this place being negative as he swans about patronizing anyone who holds an alternate opinion to his. Lol.

[GS]

Facts, mate.

[Lewis]

Speaking of which, Wee Jimmy had a shocker on Brillo this morning. Again, why subject yourself to it? You know you're going to get molested.

[GS]

I've just watched it. I lolled when she suggested that they'd undertake the same measures as the UK to address their huge fuck off deficit. 'Champions of Scottish socialism' implementing Tory austerity policies. I almost wish they'd voted yes to watch the collective meltdown they'd be in about now.

[phonics]

Labour have abstained from voting on the 'Snooper Charter'.

Fucking disgusting. Bunch of shitty, shitty, shitty cunts.

Can't believe these fuckers think that a fucking shitty nuclear missile is more important than the BASIC RIGHT TO PRIVACY FOR THE NEXT MILLENIA.

Oh wait now I remember why, this wasn't relevant in 1980 so why would it be relevant now.

What a bunch of shits.

281 to 15. My word. What an embarrassment.

edit: Oh wait the SNP abstained too? IN THE BIN. GET IN THE FUCKING BIN. YOU NOT ONLY HAND THE COUNTRY A TORY GOVERNMENT BUT THEN YOU PLAN ON FUCKING OVER EVERY ONE OF US AT EVERY TURN. FUCK OFF TO YOUR OWN SHITTY COUNTRY. GET FUCKED.

[GS]

You don't even live here, mate.

[Toby]

Labour have abstained from voting on the 'Snooper Charter'.

Fucking disgusting. Bunch of shitty, shitty, shitty cunts.

Can't believe these fuckers think that a fucking shitty nuclear missile is more important than the BASIC RIGHT TO PRIVACY FOR THE NEXT MILLENIA.

Oh wait now I remember why, this wasn't relevant in 1980 so why would it be relevant now.

What a bunch of shits.

281 to 15. My word. What an embarrassment.

edit: Oh wait the SNP abstained too? IN THE BIN. GET IN THE FUCKING BIN. YOU NOT ONLY HAND THE COUNTRY A TORY GOVERNMENT BUT THEN YOU PLAN ON FUCKING OVER EVERY ONE OF US AT EVERY TURN. FUCK OFF TO YOUR OWN SHITTY COUNTRY. GET FUCKED.

It's still at the first reading. Both Labour and the SNP have strongly opposed various aspects of it and made clear they will not vote in favour of it unless it is significantly amended.

http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/hansard/commons/todays-commons-debates/read/unknown/309/#c309


The SNP joins the MPs from all parties in the House who have grave concerns about many aspects of the Bill. We do not doubt that that the law needs a thorough overhaul and welcome attempts to consolidate a number of statutes in order to have a modern, comprehensive law. We also recognise that the security services and police require adequate powers to fight terrorism and serious crime. However, such powers must always be shown to be necessary, proportionate and in accordance with the law. In particular, powers must not impinge unduly on the right to privacy or the security of private data. We feel that many of the Bill’s powers do not currently pass those tests. For that reason, the SNP cannot give its full support to the Bill in its current form. We intend to join others in the House to ensure that the Bill is as extensively amended as possible. We shall be abstaining today, but if the Bill is not amended to our satisfaction, we reserve the right to vote against it at a later stage.

[Lewis]

It's budget day, and Jezza is asking questions about air pollution. Come on, lad.

[Lewis]

When you've had to bin your forecasts from six months ago because they're now forty billion(!) out, why have another crack at predicting the next five years? You twat.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Because nobody remembers/cares other than today.

[Lewis]

He's taxed sugar. He's fucking taxed sugar.

[Toby]

Surprised he's stuck with the freeze on fuel duty but I guess there was too much political pressure to do any differently.

[Toby]

Lifetime ISA sounds decent. The headline stuff in the past couple of budgets has all suited me very well on a selfish personal level.

This about covers it from a broader perspective though:

710097821219889153

[Jimmy Floyd]

Surprised he's stuck with the freeze on fuel duty but I guess there was too much political pressure to do any differently.
If he raises that then the Sun and Mail go into open rebellion regardless of the merits, something he can't afford with Boris on whatever passes for manoeuvres in his strange world.

I think he should tax wanking next. Our children could use that time to learn skills so we can win the global race.

[Toby]

I don't think Osborne even announced this one in his speech, which is a bit odd as it actually seems very generous:


Help to Save
1.113 To help the people who find it hardest to save, the government will introduce a new Help to Save scheme for those on low incomes who wish to regularly set aside some of their income. The scheme will be open to 3.5 million adults in receipt of Universal Credit with minimum weekly household earnings equivalent to 16 hours at the National Living Wage, or those in receipt of Working Tax Credit.91 It will work by providing a 50% government bonus on up to £50 of monthly savings into a Help to Save account. The bonus will be paid after two years with an option to save for a further two years, meaning that people can save up to £2,400 and benefit from government bonuses worth up to £1,200. People will be able to use the funds in any way they wish.

[Lewis]

The government having to help people save money is such a massive admission of general failure.

[Raoul Duke]

It's fucking pointless when housing will cost far more (and increase quicker) than Little Johnny Help-To-Save will ever put away, because Gideon's sat on his hands again because he can't go after pensions and housing.

Instead he decides to deprive plebs of Mars Bars. Right.

[Lewis]

It only applies to drinks. The reasoning (according to the BBC) is that even the thickos who apparently mainline Pepsi know not to eat loads of chocolate. Who has ever got fat (or at least fat enough for it to fuck them over) from fizzy drinks? Being fat requires a sustained campaign of eating too much and doing shit all.

[Raoul Duke]

It's probably just to annoy Scotland by putting up the cost of Irn Bru.

[Henry]

You know, I could easily cut and paste my criticism of previous budgets and apply them to this one, also adding "told you so".

Tory scum still chasing their tails as they pretend not to realise that austerity measures stalls growth, and tax cuts for the wealthy are paid for by in this case, disabled people.

[GS]

Tax cuts for the wealthy shouldn't always be represented as 'tax cuts for the wealthy' as if it's going to lead to a decrease in tax intake. It's about getting the optimum tax percentage to maximise intake, and if that's 40% instead of 45% (for the sake of argument) then I don't see why anyone, for ideological reasons, should be advocating otherwise.

I would note that Labour have even less credibility on economic matters than Gideon and his mates.

[Henry]

You can 'note' that Gideon is the reincarnation of Elvis if you like. In fact, you might as well.

[GS]

That's not to say Gideon's not a cunt, by the way. It seems the backbenches are threatening rebellion over some of the measures from yesterday. You have to wonder how many tactical retreats he can get away with before he realises he's already backed himself into a wall.

[phonics]

He's not going to balance the books, he's not actually achieved the goals of austerity outside of annoying Gray Fox and he's spent more than he's cut the last 2 budgets.

He's an absolute failure.

[Lewis]

The 'goals of austerity' are to re-shape the state under the cover of crisis-management. He's done that at least. Everything else is still bollocks, because he's shit and a coward; but then we probably prefer having some twat just bungling along, protecting pensioners and property-owners, if it means not having to take any real TOUGH DECISIONS (which could be full communism, before Henners thinks I'm associating reform with what I personally prefer).

[Boydy]

Apparently the latest Yougov poll has Labour on 34 and the Tories on 33.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Neatly coinciding with the period Corbz has been in the news least since his election...

[Lee]

Apparently the latest Yougov poll has Labour on 34 and the Tories on 33.

That's massively out of line with anything else. If Corbyn gets within fifteen points of the Tories in the next election, assuming he's still in charge, I'll be surprised.

EDIT: Didn't realise ICM had them level too.

[GS]

ICM wrote that poll off as an outlier. The government, after six years, shouldn't be exercising close to double-digit leads over the main opposition, so some closing would be expected. One thing to consider is that we're not currently in 'election mode', therefore there's no sustained bashing of the Labourite record on the economy or Corbyn's lol-worthy foreign policy views to antagonise Average Joe Voter into voting for the Tories because "communism, mate". The Tories are too busy arguing amongst themselves at the minute.

I imagine the gap will open again after the local elections see Labour get routed in Scotland, alongside what is likely to be a weak as fuck showing from Corbyn and the wider leadership during the EU referendum campaign.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Ed spent most of the last parliament in some sort of lead, and that ended well for him. Corbyn will take them well below 200 seats if allowed to continue, which alas is doubtful.

[GS]

Also that. The Labour / SNP coalition attack line will hold in the next election too, assuming the Scots haven't cried FREEDOM and tried to secede again. Throw in boundary changes and Labour really are going nowhere.

[Boydy]

I only posted it because it was interesting and not in any kind of trumphal, tribalist way but it's nice to see the board Tories rallying to explain it away.

[GS]

I'm looking forward to the day that the most sustained opposition to the Tories comes from the opposition party and not their own backbenchers. Tory I may be, but credible opposition to prevent governmental excess is never a bad thing.

[Lewis]

For all the damage it does to the political process, the one good thing about the Conservatives coasting the next election is that I won't feel compelled to vote for them.

[ItalAussie]

Researchers on government grants are no longer able to lobby the government:

http://boingboing.net/2016/03/17/rather-than-banning-lobbying.html#more-452920


The UK government has passed rules banning academics who receive public funding from "lobbying" ministers and MPs about their research, meaning that the people whom the government pays to acquire expertise in matters of public policy aren't allowed to speak to policy-makers anymore.

Good job!

[phonics]

Looks like they're going to u-turn on these disability cuts.

So how are they planning on paying for that 8% decrease in Capital Gains?

[GS]

Again, a decrease may a) increase tax intake by discouraging legitimate avoidance and b) encourage increased tax intake by encouraging sales where otherwise the asset would be held onto.

A tax cut isn't always there to "help the wealthy" - it's about maximising tax intake.

[Lewis]

I sometimes let myself think that these U-TURNS are planned in advance so that people only focus on one aspect of the budget, after which the rest of its shit sails through relatively unscathed, and nobody gets around to lolling at another round of missed targets until about May when nobody cares.

[Toby]

I sometimes let myself think that these U-TURNS are planned in advance so that people only focus on one aspect of the budget, after which the rest of its shit sails through relatively unscathed, and nobody gets around to lolling at another round of missed targets until about May when nobody cares.

That seems very likely. Things like the Lifetime ISA and Sugar Tax are only in there for much the same reason.

[Lewis]

Yeah, but those are just minor things to get positive headlines. Engineering a major policy reversal in advance is some proper scheming.

[Toby]

Sure, I didn't meant to compare them directly, just that they've managed to politicise it to such an effective degree already that anything more substantial wouldn't really surprise me.

[Toby]

Apparently EU leaders have agreed to allow 'sanitary products' to be free of VAT, which Cameron can probably boast about.

About bleeding time, not sure if there are strings attached, etc.

[Toby]

Sorry to be doing a Magic but this made me lol:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cdv7bW3XEAEcs55.jpg

[ItalAussie]

Again, a decrease may a) increase tax intake by discouraging legitimate avoidance and b) encourage increased tax intake by encouraging sales where otherwise the asset would be held onto.

A tax cut isn't always there to "help the wealthy" - it's about maximising tax intake.
Funny how that argument is always applied to cuts, and never hikes.

[GS]

Hikes on things like capital gains tend to be greeted with enthusiasm, because it invariably impacts the rich and is, therefore, perceived as a legitimate line of 'attack' against a section of society which shouldn't have the nerve to complain about it. It gets filed alongside 'closing tax loopholes' in that sense, as it simply does not lead to the uncovering of the bottomless pit of wealth that many people (unfortunately, mostly on the left) seem to think it will.

One must also consider associated consequences of any change in tax rates beyond that particular revenue stream. Lower tax tends to discourage legitimate avoidance and stimulate wider economic activity and investment. Lower corporation tax (see: Ireland) can encourage outside investment and growth. A higher tax rate may maximise tax intake from that particular stream, but lead to decrease in other revenue streams for a net loss to the treasury e.g. reduced jobs therefore reduced income tax, employer and employee NIC, VAT spend etc. etc.

I tend towards a view that lower tax rates encourage private enterprise, which is more likely to lead to job creation and economic growth.

[Pepe]

Well I've never heard that one before.

[GS]

Yes, given the repeated economic failures associated with socialist and left-wing government, you'd think we'd all accept that their approach - neatly summarised as tax and borrow to spend - doesn't really work.

[Boydy]

Ireland as an economic model to follow. Right.

[Pepe]

Tax cuts = more jobs. Facht.

[GS]

Ireland as an economic model to follow. Right.

Can you point out where I extended my point beyond the specific area of corporation tax policy? As far as I can see, my point on Ireland was restricted solely to the suggestion that a lower corporation tax rate would encourage outside investment.

There's quite an interesting analysis here (http://www.matheson.com/images/uploads/documents/Investing-in-Ireland-A-survey-of-foreign-direct-investors.pdf) which covers FDI into Ireland a few years ago. It demonstrates that the advantageous corporation tax package on offer to investors is / was a key factor leading to a decision to invest in Ireland. Indeed, this article (http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/ireland-still-ranked-first-for-attracting-high-value-fdi-1.2352402) demonstrates that the south is continuing to do well relative to European counterparts in attracting FDI - and a key component of that attraction, as evidenced by the analysis in the first link, is the advantageous tax package available to investors:


Ireland continues to lead the world in attracting high-value foreign direct investment (FDI) projects, according to IBM’s 2015 Global Locations Trends report.
This is the fourth year that Ireland has been named as the top-ranking destination by quality and value of investments. It heads a list that also includes Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Hong Kong, Finland, India and Germany.


...corporate tax was the single most cited factor originally bringing FDI to Ireland, according to almost one in two respondents (44%). However, it is far from
the only factor in the tax infrastructure. As mentioned above, 29% of respondents highlighted the corporate tax rate regime as one of Ireland’s three main competitive advantages (See Figure , page 7). In addition, 16% mentioned double taxation treaties and 14% mentioned sector-specific initiatives.

You can scoff if you want, but that's investment which is not happening with a less advantageous tax package for the prospective investors. A corporation tax cut alone is not the silver bullet some think it is (as I suspect we're going to find out very soon in the north) and needs to be coupled with other 'investment drivers' (e.g. a strong talent pool and a city that is well connected - Dublin meeting both criteria), but it can be a significant contributor to job creation and outside investment to stimulate growth.

So yes, tax cuts can lead to increased FDI and thus will create significantly more jobs in your market.

[Lee]

http://news.sky.com/story/1662752/iain-duncan-smith-resigns-over-disability-cuts

Iain Duncan Smith has resigned over the changes to disability benefit, saying that the changes shouldn't have been made given that the budget is one which benefits high earners.

I saw an tweet on PB the other day which was saying that the budget was aimed at benefiting those most likely to vote to remain in the EU. It's hard not to see everything in the context of the referendum at the minute. This resignation included. The argument isn't really about the EU at all. Everybody knows it's an exercise in internal Tory politics. Neither side is making anything approaching an informative argument about Europe. It's almost as though important things are best left to people who aren't politicians.

[GS]

This must have some impact on Osborne's hold on No 11.

Full letter is here > http://order-order.com/2016/03/18/ids-resigns-from-cabinet/

That's a rather devastating critique.

[Dark Soldier]

Lol at the reasoning from IDS, but you gotta spin that shit somehow I suppose.

[Henry]

LOL at the fucking Laffer Curve being trotted out again. No, cutting taxes doesn't not in reality increase tax revenues.

[Lee]

IDS finishing his letter with 'We're all in it together'. :D

He should have just said he was quitting because he thinks Osborne is a cunt. Lots of public appearances with Boris Johnson lay ahead, I should think.

[GS]

LOL at the fucking Laffer Curve being trotted out again. No, cutting taxes doesn't not in reality increase tax revenues.

It can (not always), and it does your position no favours to hold to the contrary. I assume you reject the summary outlined above of how a lower corporation tax rate and a generous incentive-based package contributed to significant FDI in Ireland as well. The capitalist bastards, creating jobs for their citizens.

I notice Boydy never bothered to engage on the point again.

[Lewis]

He should really have signed it off by saying he's 'turning up the volume', but he's probably wiped that from his memory.

[Boydy]

I notice Boydy never bothered to engage on the point again.

You'll notice I was at work, you complete bellwhiff.

[elth]

If everywhere would just reduce their corporate tax rates to 0, corporations would set up global head offices in every country and employ hundreds of times the population of the earth, and we could all sail off into a glorious infinte tax future.

Racing to the bottom on corporate tax rates just encourages the attitude that corporations shouldn't have to pay any tax, which is what corporations are designed to effect at an institutional level, and indeed at a legislated level anywhere that has foolishly legally required corporations to prioritise the interests of shareholders over all others. It shouldn't be encouraged anywhere and it does nothing other than temporarily increase some limited kinds of employment in one jurisdiction at the expense of all others. It's the tragedy of the commons writ large.

[GS]

Of course it will increase employment in one jurisdiction in preference to another. National governments should be primarily concerned with whether that employment is created in their own jurisdiction. I'm sure Greece, with their ~50% unemployment rate (http://www.tradingeconomics.com/greece/youth-unemployment-rate) is mollified by knowing that their economic sacrifice to maintain the stability of the Eurozone is helping to protect jobs in France or Germany.

We don't live in an internationalist society. A government can only be accountable to its own electorate. The Irish implemented a generous corporation tax package and this led to significant foreign direct investment, which leads to jobs and a more dynamic economic environment. Had the Irish not implemented such a policy, those companies may have gone to a France or a Spain. They didn't, because it is not the Irish government's concern not to 'compete' with other countries for that FDI.

I'm certainly not advocating that corporations shouldn't have to pay tax. However, I think a sensible, low-tax regime - with generous sector specific initiatives to encourage research and development or direct investment in jobs or apprentice schemes - is highly desirable. It is certainly preferable to a high tax environment which discourages investment and growth and concentrates investment decisions in the hands of a central government bureaucracy who will no doubt fuck it up.

[GS]

LOL at the fucking Laffer Curve being trotted out again. No, cutting taxes doesn't not in reality increase tax revenues.

To follow up on this point, the French attempt to increase tax rates to try and close the deficit floundered when it became clear that people were going to find any way possible around it:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/31/france-drops-75percent-supertax

Now, it may well lead to some increased revenue but an environment where job creation isn't supported throws the burden back on the state. Unemployment increases, at which point you have two choices. You either massively expand the public sector to cope (alright, lads) or you put them all on unemployment benefit. Which means you have to tax more (or borrow) to cover the expenditure, thus shafting yourself.

I fail to understand the anti-business rhetoric of the left. 'Businesses' should not be synonymous with 'bankers' or 'multi-national faceless corrupt conglomerates'.

[Henry]

You're just repeating discredited soundbites from right - wing ideologues. This kind of simplistic bullshit doesn't stack up in reality, which is much more complex. Tax cuts can (sometimes) for example cause people to do less because they get the same reward for less effort. Unless there's a specific reason to think that high taxes are fucking things up, which isn't the case here, then there's no case to be made to cut them. Ireland was an underdeveloped backwater when they embarked on their efforts, for example. That isn't the case in the UK. It's just a gift to wealthy friends, at huge cost to the poor. So moaning about the left is a bit rich.

[GS]

It's a bit laughable to denounce simplistic arguments whilst suggesting about five posts previous that 'lower tax rates never lead to increased revenues'. It is, indeed, more complex as I've acknowledged repeatedly by highlighting that the goal is an optimum taxation rate to maximise revenue - and this may arise from a tax decrease.

Your point is ill-served by clinging doggedly to the life rafts previously discarded by discredited angry left wingers.

[Lewis]

The point of lower tax rates is that you get lower tax rates. Framing the argument in relation to tax revenues is counter-productive as far as right-wingers should go about it, since 1) it supposes that the state has first claim on everything; and 2) logically (curves being curved and all) it leaves you open to having to accept that higher ones could be beneficial if it does so.

[GS]

Aye, but I'm not of the right wing bent which says that a central government function or a public sector is completely pointless. I do, however, take issue with the idea that a tax cut is somehow evidence that the government hates poor people and is helping the rich.

[Lewis]

I read an article on Stephen Crabb the other day touting him as a future Prime Minister, but I think he has a whiff of Andy Burnham about him. He looks a bit like him as well behind the beard.

1) Not posh
2) Not from Southern England
3) Do we really need more than that?
4) I think he likes sport

The first line of the article is 'The first lesson from the Budget is: do not underestimate George Osborne', so maybe it's a write-off now.

[Lewis]

The Pensions Minister has put out a statement (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cd8kn3mW0AAuFOj.jpg) (that fucking font) hammering IDS, and has clearly done so of her own accord. They're absolutely SEETHING aren't they?

[phonics]

Is it.... wobbly? Have they wrote a document, printed it, scanned it poorly and then uploaded it to the internet?

[Lewis]

The Telegraph has the scoop (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/12199136/A-furious-David-Cameron-exploded-at-dishonourable-Duncan-Smith.html) (and a lol article (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/12199148/Knives-out-for-George-Osborne-in-Tory-backlash.html) about how everyone hates George Osborne):


Downing Street advisers, on Mr Cameron’s instructions, ordered Mr Duncan Smith to defend the benefit cuts far more strongly than they were doing. Mr Duncan Smith and his aides had already raised concerns that the policy was being rushed through after they were told to draw up the plan in time for the Budget. Now the Work and Pensions Secretary was being told to clear up the mess that he had warned Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne they were making, his allies said. Dutifully, Mr Duncan Smith wrote a letter to Tory MPs defending the policy.

Yet at the same time, Downing Street was letting it be known that the Prime Minister was not as wedded to the plan as Mr Duncan Smith now appeared to be. To Mr Duncan Smith, Number 10’s aim was clear: they wanted to make him publicly take ownership of the cuts, to “throw him to the wolves”. If he was seen as the driving force behind this controversial policy, Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne could appear to be more reasonable, offering to “think again” about Mr Duncan Smith’s unpopular plan. The scheming, over the course of Thursday and Friday, was the “straw that broke the camel’s back”, in the words of one of Mr Duncan Smith’s supporters. Within hours he had quit.

That is proper shithouse behaviour.

[GS]

It is massively shithouse, but I can't say I'm much surprised.

It may have the merit of torpedoing Gideon's leadership campaign, but the Tories will need to get some semblance of UNITY together in the summer.

[ItalAussie]

It really is just a giant game to them. And to win is to get to keep playing.

[Lee]

I think Duncan Smith is a wanker but he comes out of this really well. I don't think there can be much doubt that he is taking a principled stance rather than about the EU, which is what I thought initially. Obviously he has taken the opportunity to give Osborne a slap as well, but that can't really be seen as a bad thing.

[GS]

I agree, Lee.

It'll be interesting to see what comes out of this over the next while.

[GS]

It's quite interesting to see the press who would previously have savaged IDS for being a 'heartless cunt' now viewing him as an unimpeachable authority. It's much like when people of the left-wing persuasion accepted the 'Cameron and the pig' story despite it originating from a non-dom Tory billionaire via the Daily Mail. Henry still has it as his avatar, for fuck sake.

[Lewis]

http://i63.tinypic.com/2rzun9d.jpg

That's a bit good.

[Jimmy Floyd]

The seethe from Dave and Gids is priceless. They've spent the last two months trying to bury anyone in the Conservative party who demonstrates any principles, or articulates any political arguments other than tribal loyalty to them.

Alan Mak is a good touchstone for what they want every Tory MP to be.

[Lewis]

When did we ditch Gideon? I know it peaked with this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fo-TV5aLTM), so it's probably just been a slow descent from there.

[Bartholomert]

LOL at the fucking Laffer Curve being trotted out again. No, cutting taxes doesn't not in reality increase tax revenues.

It does increase GDP, and does usually increase revenue in the long-run. Bigger pie and all that.

[Bartholomert]

You're just repeating discredited soundbites from right - wing ideologues. This kind of simplistic bullshit doesn't stack up in reality, which is much more complex. Tax cuts can (sometimes) for example cause people to do less because they get the same reward for less effort. Unless there's a specific reason to think that high taxes are fucking things up, which isn't the case here, then there's no case to be made to cut them. Ireland was an underdeveloped backwater when they embarked on their efforts, for example. That isn't the case in the UK. It's just a gift to wealthy friends, at huge cost to the poor. So moaning about the left is a bit rich.

Eh, opportunity cost of leisure goes up so you expect people to substitute away and for aggregate supply of labor to go down? Are you retarded?

[GS]

The government are in disarray and Corbyn has went on a rambling response that is a) incredibly boring and b) utters fails to press any sense of meaningful attack home. For fuck sake.

And now that I've finished watching Cameron's response, he literally swatted it away without so much as having to try. This is not effective opposition.

[Jimmy Floyd]

When did we ditch Gideon? I know it peaked with this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fo-TV5aLTM), so it's probably just been a slow descent from there.

I think it was when he lost weight and had his hair done.

[Lewis]

'If he hides his baldness, what else is he hiding?'

I was working on a theory about baldies-in-denial (Dave, Gideon, Jezza, Hague [who gets his pointless hair cut with scissors to delude himself], Shapps) being IN, and honest balds (IDS, Grayling, Hannan, Cummings) being OUT. Boris Johnson can be explained away easily enough, but Douglas Carswell causes problems when he lets it grow too much between shaves.

[GS]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2016/mar/21/tory-turmoil-cameron-ids-osborne-back-after-ids-resignation-by-backing-compassionate-conservatism-politics-live#56f02f53e4b0fc0a5ab70adb

The summation of correspondents' views at 17.26 is quite good, all things considered.

[Henry]

Eh, opportunity cost of leisure goes up so you expect people to substitute away and for aggregate supply of labor to go down? Are you retarded?

People don't think behave as the identical "rational agents" that your economic textbooks wrongly portray them as. People's attitude to leisure time is not the same as it is to goods like cornflakes or soap. If I'm working a sixty hour week to make ends meet and I can suddenly make the same money for working fifty hours, then there's a good chance I'll reduce my hours. As a result, supply of labour goes down.
And once again, I'm saying that this CAN happen, not that it always does.

[mikem]

Lewis gets points for the only non-silly view in the tax rate va tax revenue debate. Yes, the Laffer curve probably exists in a strictly theoretical sense, but it is a curve. Growth, or at least significant growth, only really happens if the specific tax is cut when it is at the peak or downward sloping side. But will that equal an increase in revenue?

Let's take a purely bullshit economy of $100 that is being throttled by a pernicious 20% tax rate. Which gives us $20 in revenue a year. Now we unleash the forces of capitalism by slashing the malignant tumor of taxes by 50%. That additional $10 runs through the economy and triples. Let's just agree to avoid accounting arguments and generously say our economy is now $130 (yes, it could be $120). At our new tax rate of 10% our revenue is $13. We grew our entire GDP by 30% and lost almost half our revenue. Even if it grew the entire economy by 50%, you would still be losing a quarter of your tax base. You don't lose the entire $10 but you are not going to increase or optimize revenue. Capital gains taxes work differently and if you are lowering rates to stop avoidance it is actually a raise from 0%.

Is it theoretically possible? Yes, in a high inflation and high unemployment world like the 60's it did happen. Bruce Bartlett, economic advisor to Rand Paul and co-author of the 1981 Regan tax plan, wrote a good article in 2010-11 on this fallacy while praising the tax cut. And the left is equally silly about capital gains tax increases which almost never harm the rich but hurt the middle class and crucify seniors.

[GS]

That argument is, as you acknowledge, highly simplistic. Whilst your central point is that we've lost $7 in tax revenue from cutting corporation tax by 50%, it fails to acknowledge other indirect benefits arising from this. For this, we do have to assume that the majority of the $30 in growth has created jobs through being re-invested. Indirect benefits could include:

1) Increased income tax from workers (including employer and employee NIC);
2) Increased income (VAT or increased profits for other companies paid through their corporation tax) through spending increases by consumers arising from having significantly more disposable income;
3) The cut in corporation tax lending itself to increased FDI to promote further direct and indirect taxation income; and
4) A reduction in spending arising from moving people from 'taking' from the system to 'contributing' to the system by moving them from unemployment benefits to work.

Through the above, you are almost certainly reclaiming a lot more than the $7 you've lost from your direct tax intake on your existing contribution pool. One assumes that the 'pool' is also likely to increase in a lower tax environment where you are presenting a more competitive package to international consumers.

So I would reject your argument as it currently stands, dealing as it does with extremely narrow parameters.

On a more ideological bent, whilst I don't ascribe to the sort of view that Ted Cruz does of literally scrapping entire central government departments (or federal departments in the American example), I don't see the merit in the argument that the government should aim to claim as much tax as possible with a view to then handing that out as they see fit.

[Yevrah]

Osborne is such a monumental cunt.

[Henry]

mikem: Yup, and that's what I mean when I say that it doesn't happen in reality. It's theoretically possible in certain situations but it's an extremely weak argument when used by people like GS.

The Tories haven't to my knowledge even bothered to predict an increase in tax take as a result, and they're no strangers to bullshit predictions to justify their shit, as we know.

[Henry]

The 'goals of austerity' are to re-shape the state under the cover of crisis-management.

You've acknowledged this before, but I'm still unsure why you're okay with them lying about it.

[Lewis]

Speaking of taxation and idiots, I read earlier that the SUGAR TAX, by increasing inflation, will end up costing us twice what it raises on index-linked debt interest.

[GS]

My argument is that it is theoretically possible where one considers the wider picture, largely to counteract the frothing at the mouth that arises when a tax cut is announced as if this means we are now going to close all our hospitals or execute the unemployed to cut costs.

What is the left wing vision for increasing taxes and handing the revenue out to people? Is it to create a society where a significant minority of people are receiving handouts from the state? Or is it simply that you don't like private enterprise and rich people and the state knows best?

[Lee]

Osborne is such a monumental cunt.

Cameron will be complicit in Osborne's behaviour. I have a strong feeling that both are bullies.

[GS]

Cameron will be complicit in Osborne's behaviour. I have a strong feeling that both are bullies.

One need only look at the way the EU arguments are being conducted within Tory ranks to see that this is the case. There are stories that Osborne was basically threatening backbenchers with no further career advancement if they supported the "Out" campaign, and Cameron is clearly attempting to 'rig' the referendum insofar as he can within the confines of existing rules. Given about half (at best estimate) of the parliamentary party are supporting Brexit, it directly challenges Osborne's authority over the wider parliamentary party.

I don't see how he takes the leadership from here.

[Henry]

My argument is that it is theoretically possible where one considers the wider picture, largely to counteract the frothing at the mouth that arises when a tax cut is announced as if this means we are now going to close all our hospitals or execute the unemployed to cut costs.

If it's going to raise tax revenues, then it needs to be justified openly on that basis (which it hasn't) using sound economic data showing same (which is also hasn't). As things stand you're just reaching into your big bag of justifications and pulling out the stock reply, which has nothing to do with anything that's actually going on in this specific situation.


What is the left wing vision for increasing taxes and handing the revenue out to people? Is it to create a society where a significant minority of people are receiving handouts from the state? Or is it simply that you don't like private enterprise and rich people and the state knows best?

We could talk about increasing taxes, but this isn't about that - it's about not decreasing them while also cutting benefits to disabled people. I'm apparently in agreement with noted lefties such as Ian Duncan Smith that it is in fact the job of the state to provide these.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Dave is a worse bloke. Osborne's problem is being too calculating and Brown-like. Both come from a very cynical school of politics which revels in wedges and dead cats on the table. It's like Blair but without the messianic self-confidence.

[Lewis]

You've acknowledged this before, but I'm still unsure why you're okay with them lying about it.

Because it's a good thing, and what is this lie amongst every other one? That said, their rhetoric has surely been vague enough to for them to say that this is what they meant by 'taking tough decisions'.

[GS]

If it's going to raise tax revenues, then it needs to be justified openly on that basis (which it hasn't) using sound economic data showing same (which is also hasn't). As things stand you're just reaching into your big bag of justifications and pulling out the stock reply, which has nothing to do with anything that's actually going on in this specific situation.

We could talk about increasing taxes, but this isn't about that - it's about not decreasing them while also cutting benefits to disabled people. I'm apparently in agreement with noted lefties such as Ian Duncan Smith that it is in fact the job of the state to provide these.

The problem you have with revamping the benefits system is that you will inevitably have individual cases which make the system look inhumane. Yet it's an inevitable consequence of such reforms that certain cases will fall through the cracks. I don't see why it's unreasonable to say that if someone is capable of working then they should be expected to do so. Where people can't work, of course support should be available. It's about trying to get this line right so that people cannot 'sponge' off the state simply because they're lazy. This is a minority of people, obviously. People with disabilities should clearly receive support from the state to support them. Again, however, one should not be able to self-diagnose a disability.

The state should act as a safety net to help people who genuinely need it - but no more. Welfare spending ballooned under Labour, and it needs to be reduced. No-one sensible will argue that people who need the help should not be affected.

[Henry]

That's just weasal words. "Reforms" and "revamping" are neutral terms, and obviously people who don't need benefits shouldn't get them, but these are just cuts to save money, including from people who do need it.

They're backtracking as we speak due to a rebellion in the ranks, thankfully.

[mikem]

I'm not making a theoretical argument. I'm proceeding from the point that we cut all taxes across the board. I'm then simply calculating what would happen if the entire economy grew by 30%. My ideological hands are tied and I'm forced to just follow the math. That is why simple models are good.

Some of your purely theoretical propositions may happen. They may not; companies are just as likely to simply shift planned or existing facilities to take advantage of free profit opportunities with no net employment gains than to decide on brand new facilities they are unsure fills a market need. Even if all that happens it will still be just a point here and a point there, but compare it to a 30% growth in a modern economy?

This generally bears out in real world numbers. Lower taxes are perfectly acceptable policy tool, but only very specific targeted taxes (air conditioner repairs in Arizona in July, for example) will likely lead to increased revenue.

[GS]

That's just weasal words. "Reforms" and "revamping" are neutral terms, and obviously people who don't need benefits shouldn't get them, but these are just cuts to save money, including from people who do need it.

They're backtracking as we speak due to a rebellion in the ranks, thankfully.

They're not weasel words. As I said previously, part of the problem of attempting to amend / reform / revamp / update / overhaul this system is that you will, inevitably, have individual cases which fall through the cracks. The budgets are huge, the numbers claiming are immense and it is inevitable that this sort of thing will happen. This is seriously unfortunate, but it does not mean that the state (Tory party, Labour party or otherwise) are evil. However, what you're suggesting is that everybody in the system in 2010 was a legitimate claimant and, therefore, no cuts in any way whatsoever could be tolerated and no assessments completed to make sure that those claiming are legitimate and should continue obtaining support from the state. This is clearly not a remotely sustainable position.

If one looks at the statistics (https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/benefit-expenditure-and-caseload-tables-2014) between 1996/7 and 2009/10 (this being last year of Major's government and the final year of the Brown government), you would note the following increases in nominal terms in certain areas:

Attendance allowance - +2.7bn (+113%)
Council tax benefit - +2.4bn (+103%)
Disability living allowance - +7bn (+155%)
Housing benefit - +8.6bn (+76%)
Jobseekers allowance - +2.5bn (+116%)
Winter fuel (introduced in 1997) - +2.7bn (+100%)

I've selected the above solely because they represented the most significant increases across the two periods stated in absolute terms (excluding pensions).

I also need to make it very, very clear that I am absolutely not suggesting that individuals or families who need support should not get it. The state should always act as a safety net for legitimate cases (as robotic and aloof a terminology as that unfortunately is). However, where you have increases of tens of billions over the course of 13 years (increasing by 87% overall in that time) then I think it is entirely fair to look at the system with fresh eyes under a new administration. The welfare budget, including pensions, comprises 37% of public spending (here (http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/7424)), and you simply cannot throw a ring fence around it and say that this is an untouchable pot of money which will, almost certainly, continue to grow - particularly pensions owing to a) the triple lock and b) a continually ageing population.

Where people can work, they should work. Where you draw that line is clearly a major issue. I agree that benefits should never be taken away from legitimate claimants. How many such cases there have been over the last six years I don't know - neither do you. Individual, anecdotal cases appearing in the media do not a fundamental problem maketh.

It is entirely reasonable that it is reviewed, it is entirely reasonable that people may be asked to justify why they continue to need support and it is entirely reasonable to make cuts where people don't need the support they're claiming, whether it was okay under the old system or not. The welfare cap was an incredibly popular policy, largely because people believe the system is broken. The only way to combat that viewpoint is to demonstrate to people that the system is robust and, more importantly, fair.

The Tories haven't got it completely right, and some welfare changes have been made with a view to cutting budgets full stop, but the principle of cutting (i.e. reducing or removing) benefits where they genuinely aren't needed is entirely reasonable. It simply cannot represent a ring fenced department as you are suggesting.

[GS]

I'm not making a theoretical argument. I'm proceeding from the point that we cut all taxes across the board. I'm then simply calculating what would happen if the entire economy grew by 30%. My ideological hands are tied and I'm forced to just follow the math. That is why simple models are good.

Some of your purely theoretical propositions may happen. They may not; companies are just as likely to simply shift planned or existing facilities to take advantage of free profit opportunities with no net employment gains than to decide on brand new facilities they are unsure fills a market need. Even if all that happens it will still be just a point here and a point there, but compare it to a 30% growth in a modern economy?

This generally bears out in real world numbers. Lower taxes are perfectly acceptable policy tool, but only very specific targeted taxes (air conditioner repairs in Arizona in July, for example) will likely lead to increased revenue.

Well, no-one is suggesting that we cut all taxes across the board.

[Henry]

They're not weasel words. As I said previously, part of the problem of attempting to amend / reform / revamp / update / overhaul this system is that you will, inevitably, have individual cases which fall through the cracks.

Those are all still weasel words, in that they are vague terms used instead of more accurate ones, with the effect of distorting what is going on - cuts. Just saying that they're not and repeating them isn't an argument.
It's the same as using "collateral damage" instead of "dead kids" or "downsizing" instead of "sackings".


The budgets are huge, the numbers claiming are immense and it is inevitable that this sort of thing will happen. This is seriously unfortunate, but it does not mean that the state (Tory party, Labour party or otherwise) are evil. However, what you're suggesting is that everybody in the system in 2010 was a legitimate claimant and, therefore, no cuts in any way whatsoever could be tolerated and no assessments completed to make sure that those claiming are legitimate and should continue obtaining support from the state. This is clearly not a remotely sustainable position.

No, it isn't at all sustainable and it has nothing to do with anything I've said, or "suggested", nor has it anything to do with what the Tories are doing. The argument that there are no benefit cheats within a welfare system is utterly ridiculous and I never would make it.


If one looks at the statistics (https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/benefit-expenditure-and-caseload-tables-2014) between 1996/7 and 2009/10 (this being last year of Major's government and the final year of the Brown government), you would note the following increases in nominal terms in certain areas:

Attendance allowance - +2.7bn (+113%)
Council tax benefit - +2.4bn (+103%)
Disability living allowance - +7bn (+155%)
Housing benefit - +8.6bn (+76%)
Jobseekers allowance - +2.5bn (+116%)
Winter fuel (introduced in 1997) - +2.7bn (+100%)

I've selected the above solely because they represented the most significant increases across the two periods stated in absolute terms (excluding pensions).

You've also not adjusted for inflation, for population growth, for economic growth, or for the fact that the second date was in the middle of a major recession.


I also need to make it very, very clear that I am absolutely not suggesting that individuals or families who need support should not get it. The state should always act as a safety net for legitimate cases (as robotic and aloof a terminology as that unfortunately is). However, where you have increases of tens of billions over the course of 13 years (increasing by 87% overall in that time) then I think it is entirely fair to look at the system with fresh eyes under a new administration. The welfare budget, including pensions, comprises 37% of public spending (here (http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/7424)), and you simply cannot throw a ring fence around it and say that this is an untouchable pot of money which will, almost certainly, continue to grow - particularly pensions owing to a) the triple lock and b) a continually ageing population.

Where people can work, they should work. Where you draw that line is clearly a major issue. I agree that benefits should never be taken away from legitimate claimants. How many such cases there have been over the last six years I don't know - neither do you. Individual, anecdotal cases appearing in the media do not a fundamental problem maketh.

It is entirely reasonable that it is reviewed, it is entirely reasonable that people may be asked to justify why they continue to need support and it is entirely reasonable to make cuts where people don't need the support they're claiming, whether it was okay under the old system or not. The welfare cap was an incredibly popular policy, largely because people believe the system is broken. The only way to combat that viewpoint is to demonstrate to people that the system is robust and, more importantly, fair.

The Tories haven't got it completely right, and some welfare changes have been made with a view to cutting budgets full stop, but the principle of cutting (i.e. reducing or removing) benefits where they genuinely aren't needed is entirely reasonable. It simply cannot represent a ring fenced department as you are suggesting.

Where have I suggested that? Also why are you talking about "legitimate claimants" as if that were the issue here, rather than cuts for actually disabled people, as is the case?

I disagree with the necessity of making budget cuts based on the deficit fetishism that underpin Osborne's failed economic policies. It is something even more sinister when the budget cuts are to pay for tax cuts for higher earners - there the question of what is "ring fenced" or otherwise isn't even relevant.

[GS]

Those are all still weasel words, in that they are vague terms used instead of more accurate ones, with the effect of distorting what is going on - cuts. Just saying that they're not and repeating them isn't an argument.

No, it isn't and it has nothing to do with anything I've said, or "suggested", nor has it anything to do with what the Tories are doing. The argument that there are no benefit cheats within a welfare system is utterly ridiculous and I never would make it.

You've also not adjusted for inflation, for population growth or for economic growth.

Where have I suggested that? Also why are you talking about "legitimate claimants" as if that were the issue here, rather than cuts for actually disabled people, as is the case?

I disagree with the necessity of making budget cuts based on the deficit fetishism that underpin Osborne's failed economic policies. It is something even more sinister when the budget cuts are to pay for tax cuts - there the question of what is "ring fenced" or otherwise isn't even relevant.

I take issue with 'cuts' as a catch-all term. A system can be reformed to make it more efficient without it being a 'cut' to services. One suspects you favour the terminology 'cuts' because it suits the ideological agenda. Whilst some has been 'cuts', it's also clear that some of it has been reform-driven. You may not like the reforms, but reforms they are. Therefore 'cuts' is not an appropriate terminology for the programme since 2010.

Population growth in the same period was only 7% (http://databank.worldbank.org/data/reports.aspx?source=2&country=GBR&series=&period=) according to the World Bank, whilst GDP growth was 31% (adjusted for inflation) (http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2009/nov/25/gdp-uk-1948-growth-economy). It's clear that welfare outlay has drastically outstripped growth indicated by the metrics you suggest.

If you accept that there are benefit cheats in the system (not many, and not everyone), do you accept that it's reasonable for a government to look at the system and make 'cuts' or, indeed, implement reforms to make the system more efficient and to reduce the burden on the state where possible? Incidentally, I don't remotely disagree with your point on cuts to the disabled budget arising from this budget - my assumption is we're discussing the Tory programme extending back to 2010 rather than this budget in isolation.

[ItalAussie]

Even if you accept the Laffer curve as an accurate model of the present economy, it pretty clearly illustrates that there is an entire tax regime (anything to the left of the stationary point) where cutting taxes loses revenue. For some reason, people always act as if the fact that we're on the right-hand side of the graph is a given. I contend that we're probably a decent way to the left of it, and getting further. It's really just a way of shadowing in supply-side economics.

[Bartholomert]

Even if you accept the Laffer curve as an accurate model of the present economy, it pretty clearly illustrates that there is an entire tax regime (anything to the left of the stationary point) where cutting taxes loses revenue. For some reason, people always act as if the fact that we're on the right-hand side of the graph is a given. I contend that we're probably a decent way to the left of it, and getting further. It's really just a way of shadowing in supply-side economics.

Cutting taxes isn't about raising revenue in the short term, it's about sustainably and efficiently improving the quality of life of the citizenry in the long-run.

[ItalAussie]

That is definitely a more intellectually defensible position.

[Lewis]

Nigel Farage has really timed this UKIP MELTDOWN perfectly. Twat.

[Yevrah]

Why's Evans been suspended?

[GS]

Because she threatened Farage's grip on control. He's an absolute wanker. He probably forced the referendum as well, so you'd think he'd step gracefully off-stage and let the less odious factions try and win the fucking thing.

[Lewis]

Team Spreadsheet might like this (https://storify.com/hopisen/defending-good-unions-doesn-t-mean-protecting-bad-?utm_campaign=&utm_content=storify-pingback&utm_medium=sfy.co-twitter&utm_source=t.co&awesm=sfy.co_b0xVj) on bent unions.

[GS]

I've just watched PMQs. It's too easy for Cameron these days.

[randomlegend]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRBDue9nJYs

Heh.

EDIT: Oh that really is quite old. Oh well.

[GS]

This is quite fun where one considers the oil figures as well: http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14381886.Salmond__independent_Scotland_would_be_de nied_currency_union_deal_to_share_pound/?ref=twtrec

[ItalAussie]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRBDue9nJYs

Heh.

EDIT: Oh that really is quite old. Oh well.
Even the excellent Atkinson bit aside, I can't believe he actually said that. :cab:

[GS]

"The PM won’t even recall Parliament so I’ve launched a petition. It's that serious."

It's that serious indeed.

[GS]

Also not to dreg up an older discussion point, but I did quite like the noted right-wing grouping of the SNP deciding against the introduction of a 50% tax rate for higher earners because they think it would lose money - here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-35915309).

Scottish Labour have, of course, demanded that the tax rate be introduced anyway for ideological reasons like "the rich should pay their fair share", as if they're not already contributing a significant percentage of the tax revenues already.

[Jimmy Floyd]

The SNP is a fundamentally right wing party, they only pose as lefties because it's convenient.

They also call themselves Scottish Nationalists whilst trying desperately to hide any trace of nationalism.

[Lewis]

I read the other day that the majority of potential 50p rate payers in Scotland are senior state sector workers (earning more than the Prime Minister!), in which case having the increased rate makes a lot of sense.

[GS]

So we now have tens of thousands of people likely to be out of a job once what's left of the British steel industry collapses.

The companies in the UK have a book value of zero, have written off £2bn in impairment to their accounts and are losing £1m a day. Alongside the Chinese producing far more than us and selling it at a much lower price, green levies introduced have significantly driven up energy costs where it's being used for heavy industrial use.

Yet it's still being genuinely suggested by John McDonnell that we should nationalise the industry. Not only are we not able to in light of EU rules on state aid, it would be fucking stupid given it's a huge financial black hole and you can't see a way we can genuinely 'compete' in a global market when the Chinese are prepared to sell excess steel at cost price.

[Jimmy Floyd]

The only way you can hope to compete with Chinese manufacturing is to adopt their labour practices, which... yeah.

[phonics]

Shamelessly stolen from Andrew Neill fact: China has produced more steel in last two years than Britain has since the 19th century

Port Talbots an absolute dump of skag already. Can't imagine what it'll look like if the place closes.

[Lewis]

Say what you want about Jezza and nationalisation, but it is at least a coherent policy. The rest of them are just moaning about the government not doing anything, and, seeing as they can't actually believe that a few phone calls from the Ministry of Supply will make the Indians see sense (I mean what the fuck is this (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/government-missing-action-labour-fight-7658951) proposing?), they can only be using all these job losses to take the piss.

[Jimmy Floyd]

I'm with Angela. I mean if the Tories can't see 'what is necessary to save these jobs' they must be idiots.

[GS]

Nationalisation is a 'coherent' policy in the same way that carpet bombing ISIS is a 'coherent' policy.

Short of nationalising the companies (in contravention of EU rules), paying off all of their existing creditors, providing huge unlimited loans for ongoing working capital / to cover cash losses and imposing significant tariffs on imported steel (with the assumption that the EU, where we get two-thirds of it, or China won't retaliate / care), what can you realistically do? It's a huge financial black hole and they can't compete any more.

That said, I do think the impact of the 'green levies' on the industry needs to be studied as they've surely accelerated their decline by driving up costs and eating into what limited capital they've had available to try and keep the thing going. We can thank Ed Miliband for that one. Twat.

[Lewis]

I'm not saying that it would be worthwhile, but it would have the desired effect of preventing a load of job losses in the immediate future, so it is at least an actual policy proposal with some sort of ideological foundation (I obviously don't want to see the government nationalising things). Moaning on Twitter is worthless.

[GS]

You'd prevent them for about five years before you had to accept it wasn't worth the hassle.

It's not the like the railways, which I could get behind nationalisation on because they're a) essential to the transport network and b) currently absolutely shite.

[phonics]

The living wage won't apply to anyone under 25? :D My word. It's not like a good 70% of them are stuck in zero hours jobs or if they have the luck to be born middle class, unpaid internships.

[Jimmy Floyd]

All they have to do is start voting.

[phonics]

They did, they got Daves best mate Cleggers in return, who then went on to do exactly the opposite of what people voted him in for, remember?

Imagine if you left work at 16 and couldn't make MINIMUM wage for nine years.

[Jimmy Floyd]

I'm on your side on this one, Swiss Tony.

[Smiffy]

.....

[GS]

They did, they got Daves best mate Cleggers in return, who then went on to do exactly the opposite of what people voted him in for, remember?

Imagine if you left work at 16 and couldn't make MINIMUM wage for nine years.

The system is graded, so anyone over 21 is currently earning only 50p less than the national 'living wage'. The issue is that there are quite a lot of jobs for school leavers with no qualifications which simply aren't 'worth' paying the national living wage for.

It's quite interesting reading around this, because there's quite a divergence of views. On one hand, it kicks the current public burden of 'subisidising' low pay back to the private sector. On the other, it's going to cost 60,000-odd jobs (at best estimate, although these are government figures I believe whereas independent academic research suggests it could be 'up to' 300,000) and will raise costs for small businesses. The DOOMSDAY that was prophesied after the introduction of the minimum wage never happened, so you'd expect the more extremist claims won't materialise.

To be blunt, the low-paid job market is in for an absolute hammering over the next few years and I can't see any way it's going to be a reversible process. Increased automation and increased globalisation will reduce the supply of jobs in the UK, whilst continued immigration from the EU (just look at the state of some of these minimum wages (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_in_Europe_by_minimum_wage )) will continue to ensure that demand for those jobs significantly outstrips supply.

That's capitalism for you, and short of communism, protectionism or a massive increase in the public sector then there's really not much you can do. The national living wage is a nice idea in principle, but one suspects, like the green levies, it's going to have any number of quite unpleasant consequences for low paid workers. As horrible a sentiment as it is, there's ultimately a reason why it's low paid work.

[Boydy]

You could reduce housing costs by building more houses. Then low wages wouldn't matter as much.

[GS]

You could, but you would still be in a situation where low paid work is low paid for a reason and where demand for jobs significantly outstrips supply.

[Pepe]

You know what they say, life starts at 25!

[phonics]

Just popping in to point out that Seattle and L.A. basically disprove the theory that a rise in minimum wage results in a net job loss.

Chris Hayes did an excellent piece on it.

In other news, it's been revealed that Harolds only favourite bum boy has instead of writing his own stuff had a team of 47 interns be a prick on his behalf.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/josephbernstein/top-conservative-writer-is-a-group-effort-sources-say#.cc8DzLVB9m

Just a look at his Slack is amazeballs

https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2016-03/30/13/enhanced/webdr08/enhanced-23451-1459359746-5.jpg

edit: I mean...


“include (1) feminism attention seeking for ugly people

It's almost like Harold directly lifted stuff from a bunch of 4channers. Amazing.

[Pepe]

But, but, small businesses! Also, lower wages are better for the poor, promise!

As for 'milo,' can't go wrong with the 'well, everyone else is doing it too' defense.

[phonics]

Oh here's that graph, I can't find a video that can be viewed outside U.S.

714486148396134403

[GS]

Are you sure? I've had a quick look and the latest figures would appear to suggest otherwise: here (http://www.aei.org/publication/early-evidence-suggests-that-seattles-radical-experiment-might-be-a-model-for-the-rest-of-the-nation-not-to-follow/), here (http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/02/19/seattles-15-minimum-wage-jobs-down-unemployment-up-this-isnt-working-is-it/#434744613712) and here (http://www.aei.org/publication/minimum-wage-effect-january-to-june-job-losses-for-seattle-area-restaurants-1300-largest-since-great-recession/). That's just Seattle, but there's data which suggests that the new minimum wage is also having an adverse impact in LA - here (http://www.aei.org/publication/more-troubling-signs-of-minimum-wage-damage-on-the-west-coast/), but then your link would appear to suggest perhaps not. You would need to do a proper study on this, as your conclusions are only going to be as worthwhile as your data.

I can't vouch for the accuracy of the data in the sources, but it's clearly logical that increased costs to business will lead to job losses as it's always going to be a) a significant component of the company's cost and b) the easiest cost to make significant 'cuts' within, particularly in businesses which are high volume, low margin.

[Lewis]

'Milo' was alright when he had a few thousand followers. Now it's all a bit sinister.

[Lewis]

China has stuck tariffs (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/04/01/defiant-china-slaps-steel-tariffs-on-britain-as-trade-war-looms/) on 'high-tech' European steel (the sort we make). Well. That's that.

[GS]

It's all a bit unfair having the business secretary turn up and basically lie to people for the sake of looking like you're doing something.

[Jimmy Floyd]

I'm deriving quite a bit of lol from this rapid unravelling of their ghastly brown nosing of the yellow peril a few months back.

Why the fuck would we think that we'd carry on manufacturing steel on this shitty island forever more when the big countries with loads of land and rocks and all that are industrialising and have non-democratic governments to blockade their industry?

[GS]

Not only that, they're countries which a) don't give a fuck about 'carbon footprint', therefore don't have huge and only increasing energy costs b) aren't restricted by EU 'state aid' laws and can therefore underwrite losses or provide subsidies to the industry and c) have labour laws which leave 'the worker' with pretty much no rights whatsoever. Much lower costs to produce and no fucks given about the consequences of it.

It's the same with North Sea oil. There's constant chat from the SNP that the government aren't doing enough to support the industry. How can you compete when the Saudis are prepared to pump millions of barrels of oil onto the market? The breakeven price for North Sea oil is something like 4-6 times that of the Saudis. There's nothing of genuine consequence you can do given the wider global economic context.

[Boydy]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/02/jeremy-corbyn-mobbed-by-supporters-during-bristol-walkabout

:cool:

[Jimmy Floyd]

He is really good at that stuff. His best chance in any possible general election is just to do that solidly for a month. Go total underdog.

[John]

What a name Ian Onions is.

[GS]

Sajid Javid making a twat of himself on Marr. It's as if he doesn't realise that people can go back and read / check what he says.

[Lewis]

ThyssenKrupp swooping in would be fitting, seeing as its two foundation companies did so much for British industrial capacity in the past, but you just know that the government are going to end up agreeing to some stupid deal where they take on the pension book and offer to [indirectly] pay for all the electricity. In that case they might as well nationalise it just to annoy the European Commission.

[Smiffy]

.....

[GS]

ThyssenKrupp swooping in would be fitting, seeing as its two foundation companies did so much for British industrial capacity in the past, but you just know that the government are going to end up agreeing to some stupid deal where they take on the pension book and offer to [indirectly] pay for all the electricity. In that case they might as well nationalise it just to annoy the European Commission.

Aye, some shitty half-way house that's 'politically acceptable' is where we'll end up. They either have to nationalise it and tell the EU to fuck themselves or let 'the market' take care of it.

[Smiffy]

.....

[Raoul Duke]

These Panama Papers are a bit tasty. Putin getting some serious grief and other assorted miscreants tagging along for the ride too (PM of Iceland :eyemouth:)

[Lewis]

This Labour broadcast is the worst thing I've ever seen.

[Raoul Duke]

I like Corbyn overall but why the fuck he (and the rest of Labour) aren't flogging this Panama Papers thing and its assorted Tory links I don't know. He's such a fucking pussy.

[Henry]

Well, they've called for an enquiry and have our own resident Tories frothing at the mouth in the other thread about dealing harshly with overseas territories...

[GS]

I like Corbyn overall but why the fuck he (and the rest of Labour) aren't flogging this Panama Papers thing and its assorted Tory links I don't know. He's such a fucking pussy.

Because ultimately nobody is going to care if Michael Ashcroft is implicated. Labour have also been calling for inquiries and resignations at regular intervals, so it would almost certainly be written off as more incompetence. When you set yourself up as a party whose sole purpose appears to be as a party of protest, then very soon people stop caring when you continue to protest.

That said, as we've discussed in the other thread, his suggestion of imposing direct rule on the overseas dependencies is genuinely laughable. He's an absolute clown.

[Lewis]

This Labour broadcast is the worst thing I've ever seen.

Seriously (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ninfyOsK7sM), watch it. It deserves points for representing their base so accurately, but fucking hell what are they doing?

[GS]

Seriously (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ninfyOsK7sM), watch it. It deserves points for representing their base so accurately, but fucking hell what are they doing?

I'm only 1.48 in and I've had to pause it because he's just said they only pay tax on "3% of its UK revenues". Christ.

EDIT: 2.20 in and IDS has just been cited as a source beyond reproach to stick the boot into the government. Fucking hell. :D

Right, it's now over. That was beyond shit. Just pointless moaning about the RICH and BIG BUSINESS.

[Yevrah]

It's bad, but still somehow better than some of the shit the Mong presided over during the last election campaign.

[GS]

http://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/image/2015/05/06/12/labour-ed-miliband-stone-v2.jpg

[Yevrah]

Nothing will ever beat that. :hail:

[GS]

It's bad, but still somehow better than some of the shit the Mong presided over during the last election campaign.

In other Mong-related news, the green levies he championed and helped to push through have been a significant contributing factor in accelerating the Tata steel crisis, whilst our energy costs continue to be the highest in Europe for industries with heavy use.

A fine legacy, I think we can agree.

[Lewis]

2010 was the vintage year for it. Dave shitting himself (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Txz_QdpOUA) in Andy Coulson's garden after the first debate; ginner believing in fairness (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jMJORrY2l4); and that mental post-apocalyptic (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcRXbsPafBM) Labour one that didn't involve any crap celebrities.

[Jimmy Floyd]

That Labour one is an absolute masterpiece. Perhaps the greatest political ad of all time.

Re the stone, I read somewhere that it was originally going to be in a school, but it was too heavy for the floorboards so they had to drag it out into the car park. The reason that frame had to be behind it was that the stone was actually too heavy for the tarmac it was supposed to be standing on as well, but nobody realised any of this until the day.

[Byron]

I do enjoy these Tory circlejerks.

[Boydy]

Has anyone on the internet photoshopped that stone to read:

1. Forward not backward.
2. Upward not forward.
3. Always twirling, twirling, twirling towards freedom.

?

They should.

[Lewis]

I didn't think it was an actual stone. I thought the frame was there supporting it because it was just a thin piece of plaster.

[GS]

No, it was an actual stone. He apparently intended to install it in the gardens at Downing Street. I mean, fucking hell.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Limestone.

Cost them £8,000.

[GS]

The state of this: https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/politics/news/73530/jess-phillips-david-camerons-dad-was-utterly-disgusting

[Boydy]

The state of this: http://www.thethirdhalf.co.uk/showthread.php?10-The-UK-Politics-Thread-Wot-did-Jez-do-now&p=82994&viewfull=1#post82994

[Lewis]

You wonder when somebody is just going to get it over with and call her a gobshite.

[phonics]

717741426289807361

[GS]

He has a point. It would appear that certain Labour politicians exist only so they can express venomous opposition to the Tories. It must be a difficult existence whenever you're angry 80% of the time.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Nobody has ever been 'elected as the PM'.

[John]

The first leaflet for the upcoming Scottish Parliament elections came through today. It's from the Labour candidate and current MSP for my area, Johann Lamont. It begins 'My politics is rooted in what works to change lives, not rooted in sound bites to improve a poll rating.'

:harold:

[GS]

We don't get Labour candidates here - the official Labour party won't put anyone up, so we instead get the 'Labour alternative'. We have this lad running in Belfast South:

http://labouralternative.org/candidates/sean/

His notable achievements include participating "in a protest which disrupted Assembly proceedings and occupied the Department of Employment & Learning headquarters." More importantly, what do you notice about his picture in the election poster?

http://s0.geograph.org.uk/geophotos/04/89/23/4892366_d2eac938.jpg

[Boydy]

Is his t-shirt on back to front?

[Lewis]

I thought he had a really small face, but that's probably it.

[Shindig]

Has anyone on the internet photoshopped that stone to read:

1. Forward not backward.
2. Upward not forward.
3. Always twirling, twirling, twirling towards freedom.

?

They should.

4. Abortions for some.
5. Miniature Labour 2015 flags for others.

[phonics]

I know The Telegraph is basically satire when it comes to Labour now but this one is brilliant.

"Man is paid to be an MP"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/12/jeremy-corbyns-3million-state-funded-salary-and-pension-revealed/

[phonics]

Cameron says Corbyn’s figures, like his tax return, are not entirely accurate. In the summer budget the government gave HMRC an extra £800m. And, since 2010, the government has brought in £2bn from offshore tax havens.He says previous governments said crown dependencies and offshore territories could do what they liked. Now he is insisting they crack down on tax evasion.

Where's GS and his 'HOW DARE CORBYN TRY TELL THE CROWN DEPENDENCIES WHAT TO DO'?

[niko_cee]

I think the point is that you can, quite sensibly, try to push them to have better standards for transparency and whatnot, but if you're going to bowl in and set tax levels or residency requirements, that's a different matter.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Jeremy Corbz calling for Brexit to be given the same funding for its own propaganda leaflet as the government bullshit one had. Keep fighting the good fight, Jezza.

[Lewis]

The press regulation dickheads are getting themselves into a state over John Whittingdale (good on him). Evan Harris even got on the telly.

[Boydy]

I still don't really understand the press regulation stuff. What do the pro-regulation lot want done?

Is the idea of a free press not a bit fucked anyway with super-injunctions and all that?

[GS]

I think the point is that you can, quite sensibly, try to push them to have better standards for transparency and whatnot, but if you're going to bowl in and set tax levels or residency requirements, that's a different matter.

This is it. They're significantly different.


I still don't really understand the press regulation stuff. What do the pro-regulation lot want done?

Is the idea of a free press not a bit fucked anyway with super-injunctions and all that?

It seems they want regulations to protect privacy, whilst at the same time being very upset that the newspapers have, in this case, protected privacy. What's the story here? "Man brings up with woman." Fair play to Hilary Benn, who has basically told the other cunts trying to make political hay out of it to fuck off.

[Boydy]

What regulations do they want to protect privacy though? Wasn't this all fallout from the phone hacking scandal? But that was illegal anyway, wasn't it? So why is more regulation needed? The existing laws should just be enforced.

I find it hard to believe the papers were doing this out of a respect for his privacy though.

[GS]

It would appear that the newspapers were aware of it at the time in spring 2014. He wasn't appointed Culture Secretary until last May, meaning the initial decision not to publish was made before he had any role at all in press regulation.

Basically, it seems it was an editorial decision taken at the time because there was simply no story worth publishing.

[Lewis]

It's just the normal prohibitionist shite applied to bad (that is to say tabloid) opinions. That is why they somehow draw a distinction between their concept of the 'public interest' and what the public are actually interested in, which can be measured in things like page views and sales figures.

[GS]

This is Robert Peston's view, which I think is fairly concise in debunking the conspiracy theory notions:


There has been a lot criticism heaped on four newspapers, the Sunday People, the Sun, Mail on Sunday and the Independent, for not publishing what they knew about John Whittingdale's affair with a sex worker for five months between 2013 and 2014.

The insinuation is that it suited them to have a hold on him, given that he was so important to their welfare, first as chairman of the powerful culture, media and sport selection committee, and since the middle of 2015 as culture secretary.

But the notion that there was a conspiracy is, I think, nuts.

Because it was never going to work.

If there is one thing I've learned in more than 30 years as a hack, it is that journalists can't keep a secret. They/we can't help ourselves - we gossip. So any deliberate cover up would always have failed.

What is clear to me is that this story was not published because the four newspapers failed to establish that it was a story - and the vendor of the story was asking a lot of money for it, £20,000.

If you doubt the absence of formal conspiracy, here is an interesting piece of circumstantial evidence.

The Sunday People was the first newspaper to be offered the story at the end of 2013.

It approached Tom Watson - the Labour MP, now deputy leader of the Labour party, then a colleague of Mr Whittingdale on the Culture committee - for his advice on whether it should publish.

He told them he did not see there was a public-interest reason to run the story on Mr Whittingdale's affair, since he was a single man, this was his private life, and the People had no evidence that Mr Whittingdale had paid for sex.

So a prominent MP who presumably would feel that embarrassing Mr Whittingdale was in his party's interest cautioned against publication.

And there is the rub. There may be pictures of Mr Whittingdale on the London Underground with the sex worker.

But those pictures are consistent with Mr Whittingdale's account of events, that he had no idea that the sex worker was in fact a sex worker.

The point is that the sex worker was not the vendor of the story, and was not talking about the affair. This was no kiss and tell.

The newspapers had snaps and the testimony of a third party. But that hardly constitutes proof that Mr Whittingdale had behaved scandalously. The worst they could probably have said is that a sex worker is an unusual social partner for an MP.

That however does not mean that Mr Whittingdale himself is completely in the clear.

He was aware that the papers were in possession of salacious gossip about him - which could be seen, by the wider public, to give him a motive to keep on their good side.

The point is that the perception of a conflict of interest for him as culture secretary is strong and unambiguous - especially since, as I said yesterday, he has huge decisions to make about legal costs for newspapers and whether they undergo a second hacking enquiry.

So it is extraordinary that he didn't tell the prime minister or the cabinet secretary, Sir Jeremy Heywood, about the press's possession of the unpublished story, when he was offered the job of culture secretary just under a year ago.

That would have protected him from any suggestion that he would be or is anything but impartial in the conduct of his office.
Downing Street tells me Mr Whittingdale's omission isn't a sacking offence. But there is a strong sense of irritation that the PM was not kept in the picture (and not just because, as I've witnessed on a few occasions, he too likes a juicy nugget of gossip).

[Raoul Duke]

Isn't this a case of chucking a salacious story at people to try and detract from 'Dodgy Dave'?

[GS]

No.

[Boydy]

Yes.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Isn't this a case of chucking a salacious story at people to try and detract from 'Dodgy Dave'?

Yes. About someone who backs LEAVE, no less. They are the enemy.

[phonics]

Loving the right's reaction to George Osbourne's EU figures.

'These are a load of nonsense, how can he make such projections etc.'

Yes lads, we've been telling you that for 8 years now.

[Lewis]

The right being famous for its devotion to central forecasting and economic planning.

[GS]

Loving the right's reaction to George Osbourne's EU figures.

'These are a load of nonsense, how can he make such projections etc.'

Yes lads, we've been telling you that for 8 years now.

I don't think anybody sensible places any value whatsoever in forecasts, particularly anything which is looking beyond a year.

Getting the forecasts wrong is one thing, but brazenly misrepresenting the findings of the forecasts to this extent is the more fundamental concern.

[Lewis]

Nicola Sturgeon rolling her eyes at it was nice. Is that because she is decent and consistent, or does she secretly want us to leave as so many people claim?

[GS]

It probably should backfire, assuming its not uncritically repeated verbatim by media outlets.

[Yevrah]

The BBC have rubbished it, in a struggling for any balance sort of way.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36073201

Remain are taking the piss on a new level now.

[GS]

They are. It's fine if it's some tinpot campaign group, but that's the fucking Treasury pulling that together. I mean, for fuck sake.

This is a fairly savage evisceration of the claims: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/04/18/the-treasurys-dodgy-dossier-on-brexit-is-beneath-contempt/

[Lewis]

It's interesting to think of just how many people would be discredited if we left and prospered. You're looking at nearly all of the political class permanently identified with having got the biggest decision of their lives completely wrong. What would the effects of that be?

[Lewis]

Liz Truss speaks like Miranda Richardson in Blackadder II.

[Yevrah]

It's almost worth voting leave in the hope of finding out. Which is pretty much where I am right now.

[Jimmy Floyd]

I'm going to be a Leaver on the sole basis that that will result in less French influence over our lives.

[Lewis]

Juergen from Siemens on Newsnight telling us why we need to stay. European unity certainly helped your investment in Auschwitz, didn't it, mate?

[GS]

It's interesting to think of just how many people would be discredited if we left and prospered. You're looking at nearly all of the political class permanently identified with having got the biggest decision of their lives completely wrong. What would the effects of that be?

They'll claim that we would have been even more prosperous in the EU. If it collapsed as a recognisable political entity, we'd be told that this wouldn't have happened had we stayed in. We'll never be able to 'prove' otherwise, so it will represent a fairly easy 'get out' for them.

It's interesting to note that the number of public figures (business, political or otherwise) who strongly advocated that we join the Euro at the start of the last decade - I'm not sure anyone particularly cares either, even though it should be used to bring their judgement into question.

The more interesting situation will be how the fuck the Tories pull it together after the election. They've four years until 2020, but you have the party ripping shreds out of each other. It can't be good for 'team morale'. Get on with the boundary changes lads.

[Lewis]

The Conservatives will definitely be permanently seething, but yeah, you're probably right. I suppose if this stuff stuck Iraq would have sunk them all.

[GS]

Things stick sometimes. Bush Sr losing to Clinton is a decent example, largely because he was never forgiven for saying "read my lips: no new taxes" before going and doing exactly that. The Lib Dem WIPEOUT in 2015 is probably the best example of an entire party getting routed on the basis of shit sticking - although the Tory ground operation in the south-west seems to have been rather formidable.

I suspect if you can outright 'prove' an individual or a particular party lied, it'll stick. Where it's down to nuances or questions of judgement that could go either way, most people probably just shrug. Iraq has stuck to Blair and 'sunk' him in the eyes of British public opinion (if not the cunt's bank balance), but most of the Labour MPs who voted for it can just say "we were duped too, you know" and carry on collecting five-figure majorities in the ex-mining communities.

[Magic]

2 votes for Labour sent for the Scottish elections. Voting Tory is a waste and I'm desperate to finish the SNP.

UKIP to Tory to Labour. Quite a swing.

[GS]

The Tories are in second place in quite a few of the polls, which is all sorts of lol. Labour are a spent force in Scotland.

[Magic]

Not in my YES city.

[John]

Today's lol electioneering comes courtesy of the 'Scottish Trade Union and Socalist Coalition' and the 'Womens Equality Party.'

The TUSC tell me they want to bin austerity and stop the rich taking without giving. Their man is named Ian Leech. The WEP stand for equality in all things, and tell me they want to 'ensure women are seen and heard.'

I'd love to be a fly on the wall at one of the meetings which results in these leaflets. One of the stated goals of the WEP is 'more women working in the media' for fuck's sake.

[Magic]

The BBC actually has 48% of it's staff as women. No wonder it's a total shitfest at the moment.

[John]

Ian Leech mentions his salary three times on one leaflet. It's great. They also want all major companies and banks operating in Scotland to be 'brought into democratic public ownership.' I think I know who his drug dealer is.

[GS]

John McDonnell's PPS has been forced to resign after she suggested that Israel should be 'relocated' to America as a solution to the Palestinian problem.

Nice one, lads.

[Lewis]

The hysterical reaction to it is probably worse, seeing as half the rent-a-gobs have actually contributed to humanitarian disasters rather than having just shared some words.

[John Arne]

Once again lots of folk (hi Guardian and Campaign Against Antisemitism) confusing criticising a country's politics with racism. Why is every criticism of Isreal labelled as antisemitism - it's a complete joke.

[GS]

There's some fairly unpleasant historical parallels in this instance, mind. Whatever graphic she shared suggested the "transportation costs" would be worthwhile, much like the Nazis probably thought when they contemplated sending European Jews off to Madagascar.

There probably is an over reaction, but she really has brought it on herself. I think we've moved on from the time when legitimate discussion focused on Israel's right to exist, rather than how to make the two state solution work.

[GS]

There's also this from her, which is definitely anti-semitic in nature: http://order-order.com/2016/04/26/naz-shah-the-jews-are-rallying/

[GS]

On a separate note, there's a new study out by the IFS which looks at the revenue income of the UK - here (http://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publications/bns/BN_182.pdf)

It shows that income tax and NIC contributions comprise 45% of total revenue intake. The other main revenue generator is VAT, whilst corporation tax and capital taxes are 'only' 7% and 4% respectively.

The more interesting part is when you look at the breakdown of contributions at the income tax level. 43.8% of working people now pay no income tax at all (we can thank Nick Clegg for this), but the Tories have shamelessly stolen the policy and the personal allowance will continue increasing to £12,500, lifting more people out of this tax bracket. While people suggest 'the rich' aren't paying their way, the reality is that the top 1% of earners (that is, 0.56% of the population in 2014/15) are contributing a rather large, fuck off 27.5% of income tax revenues. The personal allowance is tapered after earnings of £100K, and an additional 1.1m people moved into the higher rate payment brackets between 2008 and 2015 as well, so 'middle earners' are also paying a whack more.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Labour now completely imploding over anti-Semitism. It brings a tear to the eye.

[phonics]

725640479367385088

Can't believe they're doing a new Thick Of It.

[Jimmy Floyd]

He's actually gone on live TV - with Brillo, no less - to dig an even deeper hole.

Tremendous leadership from the Corbmeister.

[Henry]

Did Livingstone say that Hitler was a Zionist? I heard that reported.

Stupid decision for him to back Khan.

[Lewis]

725640479367385088

Can't believe they're doing a new Thick Of It.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CIfNtLbCC0

[phonics]

725660631697862656

That's a great turn of phrase.

[phonics]

725656385896239104

What a day. What. A. Day.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Seumas Milne said to be in the leader's office saying 'Ken has a point' and 'Jeremy won't be pushed around'.

(that's not a shit gag, by the way, Times sources reported it)

[John Arne]

Except for the "Hitler was a supporter of Zionism", everything else he said was broadly correct, from what I can tell.

[Jimmy Floyd]

He was defending the anti-Semitic postings of a Labour MP by invoking Adolf Hitler. 'Correct' is not featuring prominently in dispatches.

[Yevrah]

How in the name of fuck have Labour got involved in all this?

[phonics]

How in the name of fuck have Labour got involved in all this?

Que?

[Henry]

Gotten involved in what a Labour MP and their party members do and say? You what?

[phonics]

How in the name of fuck have Labour got involved in all this?

Think you're getting confused with the NUS president who also loves a bit of anti-semitism on the side.

[Lewis]

You would have expected a base of Muslims and communists to be so much more enlightened than this. What has happened?