If Labour don't win the next election, I think we might see the man who should be leading the party right now look to take his rightful place - David Miliband. Every time he's spoken in the House he has been intelligent, cutting and almost always right with the things he has said, and it still disappoints me that this weak Government isn't being put to the sword by DMil, instead having to cope with EMil.
Wrong brother in charge!
The Tories do face a problem if they lose the election though, there really is no viable candidate for right now, and they'd never have Hague back because he's not a strong enough leader. Osborne would have been the successor if he hadn't shown himself to be incompetent at both economics and policy planning.
David Millibands problem is that he's too much of a Blair-ite. Too much of a centrist.
I voted for Ed in the party elections because he's just a little bit left of that.
I'm not really interested in cutting, am entirely fed up with bear pit politics where the amount of insults you can throw is seen as somehow superior to the amount of ideas you can generate.
David looks like the better candidate because he's as slick and smooth as Blair, Cameron and Clegg. I'm sick to death of slick.
Ed isn't doing as well at the moment but there's time for that to change. Hopefully.
Is it? It's not one of his birth names and there's no evidence he went through any legal procedure to change it to George. AFAIK he simply announced that from now on he was to be known as George - which is the right everyone has
Is it? It's not one of his birth names and there's no evidence he went through any legal procedure to change it to George. AFAIK he simply announced that from now on he was to be known as George - which is the right everyone has
Just like women who marry and take on another name by choice?
David Millibands problem is that he's too much of a Blair-ite. Too much of a centrist.
I voted for Ed in the party elections because he's just a little bit left of that.
I'm not really interested in cutting, am entirely fed up with bear pit politics where the amount of insults you can throw is seen as somehow superior to the amount of ideas you can generate.
David looks like the better candidate because he's as slick and smooth as Blair, Cameron and Clegg. I'm sick to death of slick.
Ed isn't doing as well at the moment but there's time for that to change. Hopefully.
I agree the Miliband E might continue to improve. He is looking far less geeky and amateurish than he did at the start. And if they ditch him before 2015 there will have to be a five month long leadership election process like the last one. They had no leader from May to September in 2010. This would leave the Labour Party leaderless for five months with Harman in charge while the various candidates campaigned and competed with each other. And once they had elected another leader the Party would be split again and full of resentful people who did not win.
<sigh> Not another one who doesn't understand the difference between tax evasion and avoidance.
Oh do stop sighing and grow up - I know exactly what the difference is and fully support Ken 's right to pay as little tax as he can get away with. If Ken can get away with only paying 14% tax on his earnings then good luck to him - pity he is too hypocritical to say the same about everyone else :rolleyes:
Oh do stop sighing and grow up - I know exactly what the difference is and fully support Ken 's right to pay as little tax as he can get away with. If Ken can get away with only paying 14% tax on his earnings then good luck to him - pity he is too hypocritical to say the same about everyone else :rolleyes:
Me grow up? You're the one accusing Ken of tax evasion when you seem to accept it's tax avoidance he's engaged in. That's childish.
"Apart from the 14.5% effective income tax rate – which Matthew Hancock points out is less than a City Hall cleaner pays – the main take-away from the part-publication is that by paying himself in dividends he is avoiding paying National Insurance, which employees have to pay. If you are employed you pay it at 12%. If you are self employed you pay it at 9%. If you are Ken, you don’t pay it at all."
So based on which figures (income and tax paid) does Livingstone pay 14.5% tax? Because based on the figures he published, assuming they are true, in 2010/11 he paid 36.65% total tax on his total income. Although it is still not clear to me how he ended up paying so much income tax and I'm not sure what corporation tax on dividends means...
Still, I would like to see an actual breakdown of that 14.5% figure. Too much false information gets published in the media for me to take it at face value without a little bit more detail.
If Labour don't win the next election, I think we might see the man who should be leading the party right now look to take his rightful place - David Miliband. Every time he's spoken in the House he has been intelligent, cutting and almost always right with the things he has said, and it still disappoints me that this weak Government isn't being put to the sword by DMil, instead having to cope with EMil.
Wrong brother in charge!
The Tories do face a problem if they lose the election though, there really is no viable candidate for right now, and they'd never have Hague back because he's not a strong enough leader. Osborne would have been the successor if he hadn't shown himself to be incompetent at both economics and policy planning.
Ed has actually been right on the money so far. Many of those around him are weak-kneed surrender monkeys who wanted to ditch the 'too far too fast' line, (probably Labour's only talking point that actually resonates) admit responsibility for the budget situation and and capitulate to the government on fiscal policy. Ed rightly resisted this as nearly 90% of the cuts are still to come and it would have left Labour with no credibility when the sh*t hits the fan. This just proves the Blairites are all tactics and no strategy; they're not capable of thinking any further ahead than the evening news bulletins the next day.
When the hacking scandal broke the usual suspects were against standing up to the Murdochs. They still feared him and didn't realise how big the scandal was; they thought it'd blow over fairly quickly. That's another one Ed got right.
When Osborne gave his recent Budget and announced the tax cut for the rich, there would have been many in the upper echelons of Labour who wanted to either ignore it or accept it. They still subscribe to the tired old canard that taxing the rich is 'taxing aspiration' and stick their heads in the sand when shown polls that show how popular it is. Blair famously called it 'opinion poll guff.' Had Miliband listened to them then the whole 'taxing grannies to give a tax cut to millionaires' meme would never have taken hold. It is also likely that the whole pasty tax and petrol panic furore would have never have kicked off and the government, instead of taking a catastrophic hit during the past couple of weeks that could cloud their reputation for the rest of the Parliament, may have come through it with barely a scratch on them.
So that's another one Ed got right. In fact, as far as I can see, he's got all the big calls right. It just goes to show that the Blairities and centrists in the party are now the dinosaurs. Their whole ideology and electoral strategy are completely outmoded. They're still partying like it's 1994 and it's time they got with it.
Sorry for the long rant, it's just that the Blairite tendency have been so wrong and so damaging in recent years that it really can't be said often enough.
They're Labour's equivalent of the old Tory wets from the late 70s and early 80s who Thatcher had to battle against and who didn't realise that the world had changed and their approach was outdated.
I predict the 2015 turnout will be lowest ever recorded, I will be amazed if its any higher than 50%. The country is facing a serious democratic crisis, the people have lost faith in the nations "leaders".
I predict the 2015 turnout will be lowest ever recorded, I will be amazed if its any higher than 50%. The country is facing a serious democratic crisis, the people have lost faith in the nations "leaders".
This worries me too. I've never known all three party leaders to be so unpopular. There's usually at least one who has decent ratings.
It's vital that we have either a credible government or at least the prospect of having a credible government fairly soon. Without this the nation is left essentially rudderless and the cynicism is corrosive.
The only thing the main three parties have going for them is that under the FPTP voting system it's virtually impossible for the likes of UKIP to suddenly gain large numbers of seats.
The only thing the main three parties have going for them is that under the FPTP voting system it's virtually impossible for the likes of UKIP to suddenly gain large numbers of seats.
Especially when the BBC ignores them in favor of the greens despite being behind the UKIP in terms of popularity.
David Millibands problem is that he's too much of a Blair-ite. Too much of a centrist.
I voted for Ed in the party elections because he's just a little bit left of that.
I'm not really interested in cutting, am entirely fed up with bear pit politics where the amount of insults you can throw is seen as somehow superior to the amount of ideas you can generate.
David looks like the better candidate because he's as slick and smooth as Blair, Cameron and Clegg. I'm sick to death of slick.
Ed isn't doing as well at the moment but there's time for that to change. Hopefully.
Being a centrist isn't a bad thing, I've long believed that the true position of this country should be central. Too far left and civil liberty is generally threatened, too far right and the rich-poor gap becomes too much - conservatives don't like spending money on those dreadful poor people.
The truth is slap bang in the middle ground, and I still believe that despite all the "Blairite" labels people choose to give to David Miliband that he is the person who should be leading the Labour party. Ed is okay but he doesnt have the force of character needed to put this Government under sustained pressure - everything that has happened in a negative way to the Government is because of their own doings and arrogance as opposed to concerted pressure from Ed.
Ed speaks well enough, but he does not have the brain to think on his feet - how the hell would he cope in PMQs during the opposition leader questions? He struggles now when BEING the opposition leader. It's only when he has pre-prepared speeches that he starts to show any gumption.
My money would still be backing David if Labour were to lose the next election.
Ed has actually been right on the money so far. Many of those around him are weak-kneed surrender monkeys who wanted to ditch the 'too far too fast' line, (probably Labour's only talking point that actually resonates) admit responsibility for the budget situation and and capitulate to the government on fiscal policy. Ed rightly resisted this as nearly 90% of the cuts are still to come and it would have left Labour with no credibility when the sh*t hits the fan. This just proves the Blairites are all tactics and no strategy; they're not capable of thinking any further ahead than the evening news bulletins the next day.
When the hacking scandal broke the usual suspects were against standing up to the Murdochs. They still feared him and didn't realise how big the scandal was; they thought it'd blow over fairly quickly. That's another one Ed got right.
When Osborne gave his recent Budget and announced the tax cut for the rich, there would have been many in the upper echelons of Labour who wanted to either ignore it or accept it. They still subscribe to the tired old canard that taxing the rich is 'taxing aspiration' and stick their heads in the sand when shown polls that show how popular it is. Blair famously called it 'opinion poll guff.' Had Miliband listened to them then the whole 'taxing grannies to give a tax cut to millionaires' meme would never have taken hold. It is also likely that the whole pasty tax and petrol panic furore would have never have kicked off and the government, instead of taking a catastrophic hit during the past couple of weeks that could cloud their reputation for the rest of the Parliament, may have come through it with barely a scratch on them.
So that's another one Ed got right. In fact, as far as I can see, he's got all the big calls right. It just goes to show that the Blairities and centrists in the party are now the dinosaurs. Their whole ideology and electoral strategy are completely outmoded. They're still partying like it's 1994 and it's time they got with it.
Sorry for the long rant, it's just that the Blairite tendency have been so wrong and so damaging in recent years that it really can't be said often enough.
They're Labour's equivalent of the old Tory wets from the late 70s and early 80s who Thatcher had to battle against and who didn't realise that the world had changed and their approach was outdated.
I like this post I do.
Chizzle, I hope you don't mind me calling you that, one of the things that got Ed elected as Labour leader was his ability to think on his feet, to speak without a speechwriter. He's not lacking in gumption either, he stood against his brother in the face of the elite Blair-ites, took them on and won.
Maybe he'll prove me wrong one day but right now I see him as one of the few career politicians who still has an idealistic core.
When Blair swept into power in 1997 he'd revamped the party to an electable position again after it became clear that the old Labour, the party of labour, were unelectable. They gave us three terms of soft tory politics packaged with a red tie. Miliband-D, as far as I can see, hasn't said a single thing to challenge the lack of ideas of that period. What Labour needs to do now is distinguish itself from those years, there's too much baggage with the Blair, Mandelson, Campbell associations and the public really really really doesn't like those guys. The party needs a subtle shift to the left in terms of ideas and I really don't think that Miliband-D can provide that.
Ed IS doing that and while he's doing it he's watching the tories do a good job of self-destruct. He hasn't got a great deal to do in terms of opposition, the government is doing it for him.
Depending on how long Cameron sticks around for, I can't see Boris wanting to be Conservative leader even if they get him a safe seat in 2015 (assuming he loses the mayoral election).
Irrespective of Boris' long term ambitions, it appears that Boris would be quite happy to see Osborne in discomfort:
It's true that Boris Johnson was disappointed that his early support for David Cameron was not rewarded with a bigger frontbench job when the latter became Tory leader. It's true that Mr Cameron was initially sceptical about Boris' credibility as a Mayoral candidate. Boris then resented George Osborne's (necessary) interventions in his Mayoral campaign. Beyond that I wouldn't want to speculate. http://conservativehome.blogs.com/torydiary/boris_johnson_mayor/
I am sure that Boris was therefore enjoying the following article in The Sun on Sunday this morning:
And our investigations have revealed he WILL benefit from the new tax rates HE set...The extra income from the property in swish Notting Hill, West London, should easily top the £15,435 the Chancellor needs to earn to take him up to the £150,000 threshold. And he will pay LESS tax if he continues to rent the house out after his new 45 per cent rate comes into force in 2013. http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/4244759/Osborne-has-cut-his-own-tax-bill.html
The UK has one of the most generous overseas aid budgets of any country in the world funded by taxpayers so I fail to see why wealthy people should get tax relief which is effectively a taxpayer subsidy on donations of over £200k to charities.
The UK has one of the most generous overseas aid budgets of any country in the world funded by taxpayers so I fail to see why wealthy people should get tax relief which is effectively a taxpayer subsidy on donations of over £200k to charities.
It kind of does send out the wrong message, don't you think?
"We want the Big Society, where charities come together to do all the things that people used to be paid for, but we're not going to give them any money and we'll tax anyone who funds them as well."
It's a scrambled message yet again from the Government who have already dropped its green claims, and its claims that "we're all in this together".
It kind of does send out the wrong message, don't you think?
"We want the Big Society, where charities come together to do all the things that people used to be paid for, but we're not going to give them any money and we'll tax anyone who funds them as well."
It's a scrambled message yet again from the Government who have already dropped its green claims, and its claims that "we're all in this together".
Except it isn't taxing them for giving to charity, it is not giving them a tax subsidy for doing it, so no.
Except it isn't taxing them for giving to charity, it is not giving them a tax subsidy for doing it, so no.
Effectively the same thing. People will still choose to keep their money instead of make a donation to charity if they feel they're going to be worse off because of it. It's entirely the wrong message to send out.
Especially when the BBC ignores them in favor of the greens despite being behind the UKIP in terms of popularity.
The Greens do actually have an MP though. UKIP can probably get one or two MPs if they campaign heavily in specific areas where they have high support (which is how the Greens won in Brighton).
Comments
David Millibands problem is that he's too much of a Blair-ite. Too much of a centrist.
I voted for Ed in the party elections because he's just a little bit left of that.
I'm not really interested in cutting, am entirely fed up with bear pit politics where the amount of insults you can throw is seen as somehow superior to the amount of ideas you can generate.
David looks like the better candidate because he's as slick and smooth as Blair, Cameron and Clegg. I'm sick to death of slick.
Ed isn't doing as well at the moment but there's time for that to change. Hopefully.
Perhaps we should call him Boofhead instead?
Just like women who marry and take on another name by choice?
well at least he will pay the full tax owed - unlike Ken of course
I agree the Miliband E might continue to improve. He is looking far less geeky and amateurish than he did at the start. And if they ditch him before 2015 there will have to be a five month long leadership election process like the last one. They had no leader from May to September in 2010. This would leave the Labour Party leaderless for five months with Harman in charge while the various candidates campaigned and competed with each other. And once they had elected another leader the Party would be split again and full of resentful people who did not win.
<sigh> Not another one who doesn't understand the difference between tax evasion and avoidance.
And what was Boris' private company for?
Oh do stop sighing and grow up - I know exactly what the difference is and fully support Ken 's right to pay as little tax as he can get away with. If Ken can get away with only paying 14% tax on his earnings then good luck to him - pity he is too hypocritical to say the same about everyone else :rolleyes:
Me grow up? You're the one accusing Ken of tax evasion when you seem to accept it's tax avoidance he's engaged in. That's childish.
And where you get the 14% from is a mystery.
Forbes
Labour Uncut.
So based on which figures (income and tax paid) does Livingstone pay 14.5% tax? Because based on the figures he published, assuming they are true, in 2010/11 he paid 36.65% total tax on his total income. Although it is still not clear to me how he ended up paying so much income tax and I'm not sure what corporation tax on dividends means...
Still, I would like to see an actual breakdown of that 14.5% figure. Too much false information gets published in the media for me to take it at face value without a little bit more detail.
Ed has actually been right on the money so far. Many of those around him are weak-kneed surrender monkeys who wanted to ditch the 'too far too fast' line, (probably Labour's only talking point that actually resonates) admit responsibility for the budget situation and and capitulate to the government on fiscal policy. Ed rightly resisted this as nearly 90% of the cuts are still to come and it would have left Labour with no credibility when the sh*t hits the fan. This just proves the Blairites are all tactics and no strategy; they're not capable of thinking any further ahead than the evening news bulletins the next day.
When the hacking scandal broke the usual suspects were against standing up to the Murdochs. They still feared him and didn't realise how big the scandal was; they thought it'd blow over fairly quickly. That's another one Ed got right.
When Osborne gave his recent Budget and announced the tax cut for the rich, there would have been many in the upper echelons of Labour who wanted to either ignore it or accept it. They still subscribe to the tired old canard that taxing the rich is 'taxing aspiration' and stick their heads in the sand when shown polls that show how popular it is. Blair famously called it 'opinion poll guff.' Had Miliband listened to them then the whole 'taxing grannies to give a tax cut to millionaires' meme would never have taken hold. It is also likely that the whole pasty tax and petrol panic furore would have never have kicked off and the government, instead of taking a catastrophic hit during the past couple of weeks that could cloud their reputation for the rest of the Parliament, may have come through it with barely a scratch on them.
So that's another one Ed got right. In fact, as far as I can see, he's got all the big calls right. It just goes to show that the Blairities and centrists in the party are now the dinosaurs. Their whole ideology and electoral strategy are completely outmoded. They're still partying like it's 1994 and it's time they got with it.
Sorry for the long rant, it's just that the Blairite tendency have been so wrong and so damaging in recent years that it really can't be said often enough.
They're Labour's equivalent of the old Tory wets from the late 70s and early 80s who Thatcher had to battle against and who didn't realise that the world had changed and their approach was outdated.
This worries me too. I've never known all three party leaders to be so unpopular. There's usually at least one who has decent ratings.
It's vital that we have either a credible government or at least the prospect of having a credible government fairly soon. Without this the nation is left essentially rudderless and the cynicism is corrosive.
Especially when the BBC ignores them in favor of the greens despite being behind the UKIP in terms of popularity.
Being a centrist isn't a bad thing, I've long believed that the true position of this country should be central. Too far left and civil liberty is generally threatened, too far right and the rich-poor gap becomes too much - conservatives don't like spending money on those dreadful poor people.
The truth is slap bang in the middle ground, and I still believe that despite all the "Blairite" labels people choose to give to David Miliband that he is the person who should be leading the Labour party. Ed is okay but he doesnt have the force of character needed to put this Government under sustained pressure - everything that has happened in a negative way to the Government is because of their own doings and arrogance as opposed to concerted pressure from Ed.
Ed speaks well enough, but he does not have the brain to think on his feet - how the hell would he cope in PMQs during the opposition leader questions? He struggles now when BEING the opposition leader. It's only when he has pre-prepared speeches that he starts to show any gumption.
My money would still be backing David if Labour were to lose the next election.
I like this post I do.
Chizzle, I hope you don't mind me calling you that, one of the things that got Ed elected as Labour leader was his ability to think on his feet, to speak without a speechwriter. He's not lacking in gumption either, he stood against his brother in the face of the elite Blair-ites, took them on and won.
Maybe he'll prove me wrong one day but right now I see him as one of the few career politicians who still has an idealistic core.
When Blair swept into power in 1997 he'd revamped the party to an electable position again after it became clear that the old Labour, the party of labour, were unelectable. They gave us three terms of soft tory politics packaged with a red tie. Miliband-D, as far as I can see, hasn't said a single thing to challenge the lack of ideas of that period. What Labour needs to do now is distinguish itself from those years, there's too much baggage with the Blair, Mandelson, Campbell associations and the public really really really doesn't like those guys. The party needs a subtle shift to the left in terms of ideas and I really don't think that Miliband-D can provide that.
Ed IS doing that and while he's doing it he's watching the tories do a good job of self-destruct. He hasn't got a great deal to do in terms of opposition, the government is doing it for him.
Irrespective of Boris' long term ambitions, it appears that Boris would be quite happy to see Osborne in discomfort:
It's true that Boris Johnson was disappointed that his early support for David Cameron was not rewarded with a bigger frontbench job when the latter became Tory leader. It's true that Mr Cameron was initially sceptical about Boris' credibility as a Mayoral candidate. Boris then resented George Osborne's (necessary) interventions in his Mayoral campaign. Beyond that I wouldn't want to speculate.
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/torydiary/boris_johnson_mayor/
I am sure that Boris was therefore enjoying the following article in The Sun on Sunday this morning:
And our investigations have revealed he WILL benefit from the new tax rates HE set...The extra income from the property in swish Notting Hill, West London, should easily top the £15,435 the Chancellor needs to earn to take him up to the £150,000 threshold. And he will pay LESS tax if he continues to rent the house out after his new 45 per cent rate comes into force in 2013.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/4244759/Osborne-has-cut-his-own-tax-bill.html
It kind of does send out the wrong message, don't you think?
"We want the Big Society, where charities come together to do all the things that people used to be paid for, but we're not going to give them any money and we'll tax anyone who funds them as well."
It's a scrambled message yet again from the Government who have already dropped its green claims, and its claims that "we're all in this together".
Except it isn't taxing them for giving to charity, it is not giving them a tax subsidy for doing it, so no.
Effectively the same thing. People will still choose to keep their money instead of make a donation to charity if they feel they're going to be worse off because of it. It's entirely the wrong message to send out.
The Greens do actually have an MP though. UKIP can probably get one or two MPs if they campaign heavily in specific areas where they have high support (which is how the Greens won in Brighton).