General Election Is On

[AndrewJB]

Evans:

“If I had my time again I would stand up and argue against the implementation of Laspo, It’s wrong, completely wrong, to remove people’s right to have expert legal representation, and now I’ve gone through it I can see that clearly. We’re definitely talking about justice being denied as a result of Laspo.“

“My experience of being falsely accused, and losing my life savings to defend myself proving that, was a road to Damascus moment for me. I’m a changed person now, in terms of Laspo and sympathy for all those who now have to go through the legal system without expert help, support and advice.”

“I’m not just talking about those accused in the criminal courts like me, but everyone affected by Laspo. Parents going through the family courts, tenants fighting landlords, patients fighting hospitals and so on. Laspo is clearly not working. It needs to be overhauled.”

Admitted he got it wrong. What....a....horrible....individual...

LASPO was just one of a number of measures brought in by the Tories to reduce ordinary people’s rights. What I find crazy is most of it went under the radar, with very little protest. Perhaps while much of the nation was concerned with budget cuts? Certainly the Tory supporting press didn’t trumpet these things.

[Tall Paul]

The figures don't make sense.

Take the man on £12,500 per year. At present, he pays no NIC on the first £8,628 of his wage, and 12% on the balance of £3,872. This comes to £464.64. When the £12,500 limit comes in, he pays nothing - saving £464.64.

And then the man on £30,000. At present, he pays NIC on his income above £8,628, which is £21,372 x 12% = £2,564.64. When the rate changes, he will pay NIC on his income above £12,500, which is £17,500 x 12%, which is £2,100. A saving of £464.64.

And the man on £60,000. He pays 12% NIC on his income from £6,628 to £50,000, and 2% after that. This is £41,372 @ 12% and £10,000 @ 2%, total £5,164.64. When the allowance goes up to £12,500, he will pay £37,600 @ 12% and £10,000 @ 2%, total £4,700. A saving of, guess what, £464.64.

That's the way it works with NIC. The effect is only on the income band from £8,628 to £12,500. So everyone earning more than £12,500 gets exactly the same absolute gain. It doesn't vary with income.

Do you have a link to the original graph?

Right click ==> 'Search Google for this image'

[Devils_Advocate]

The figures don't make sense.

Take the man on £12,500 per year. At present, he pays no NIC on the first £8,628 of his wage, and 12% on the balance of £3,872. This comes to £464.64. When the £12,500 limit comes in, he pays nothing - saving £464.64.

And then the man on £30,000. At present, he pays NIC on his income above £8,628, which is £21,372 x 12% = £2,564.64. When the rate changes, he will pay NIC on his income above £12,500, which is £17,500 x 12%, which is £2,100. A saving of £464.64.

And the man on £60,000. He pays 12% NIC on his income from £6,628 to £50,000, and 2% after that. This is £41,372 @ 12% and £10,000 @ 2%, total £5,164.64. When the allowance goes up to £12,500, he will pay £37,600 @ 12% and £10,000 @ 2%, total £4,700. A saving of, guess what, £464.64.

That's the way it works with NIC. The effect is only on the income band from £8,628 to £12,500. So everyone earning more than £12,500 gets exactly the same absolute gain. It doesn't vary with income.

Do you have a link to the original graph?

https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/14212

[Devils_Advocate]

Figure from BBC website.

I would support *any* party who introduced such a measure as I believe it will help the lowest paid in society.

It's a shame to see people acting so tribally and cynically against this when it ought to be celebrated and welcomed on all sides of the political divide.

Who wants to see low paid workers having their wages taken up by taxes?

I think anything to help the lowest paid in society (which this certainly does) is a good thing and there is no cynicism from me.

My problem with this is I think it is an inefficient way to spend money to help the poor because a large part of the cost of this policy goes towards savings for the middle and high earners who do not need this.

A better policy would be something around an increase in Working Tax credits so any moneys spent by the govt is being seen by those that need it and the policy it is aimed at.

[martin_p]

Figure from BBC website.

I would support *any* party who introduced such a measure as I believe it will help the lowest paid in society.

It's a shame to see people acting so tribally and cynically against this when it ought to be celebrated and welcomed on all sides of the political divide.

Who wants to see low paid workers having their wages taken up by taxes?

But there are better ways of helping the lowest paid in society. The lowest paid in society are more likely to be on benefits and anyone on UC will automatically lose over 60% of any gain. Changes to NIC thresholds give everyone earning over that threshold more money and proportionally a bigger slice of the estimated £11bn this will cost will go to households in middle or upper income families.

So let’s not pretend this is a change targeted at low income families, if it was there are better ways of doing it that would cost less money.

Edit - snap!!!

[dsr]

https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/14212

Some pretty big assumptions, then. The big one being that when NIC rises, employee wages will fall as a result because the employer has to pay employer's NIC, and passes the cost on to the staff in the form of lower wages. The other is that even in the long term, the benefits system doesn't change to take account of this rise.

[Tall Paul]

Some pretty big assumptions, then. The big one being that when NIC rises, employee wages will fall as a result because the employer has to pay employer's NIC, and passes the cost on to the staff in the form of lower wages. The other is that even in the long term, the benefits system doesn't change to take account of this rise.

The first assumption works in the employees' favour because the analysis is looking at a fall in employer's NIC, not a rise.

[dsr]

The first assumption works in the employees' favour because the analysis is looking at a fall in employer's NIC, not a rise.

So it does. Thanks. It is a complicated footnote!

In the short run, employers rather than workers would bear the cost of the rise in employer NICs. However,
basic economic theory suggests that, in the long run, earnings should adjust so that the burden of a tax on
earnings is felt by the same people regardless of whether it is formally levied on the employer or the
employee. In practice the burden of all NICs – and income tax – is probably shared between the employer and
employee, but it is difficult to know the relative sizes of those shares, and so here we assume that the full
burden of all NICs is borne by the employee.

[Lancasterclaret]

Good (and fair!) thread on Lib Dem manifesto financial commitments.

Will be nice to compare when the same is done for the Cons and lab ones

https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/ ... 8666227713" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Tall Paul]

So it does. Thanks. It is a complicated footnote!

Yes, it certainly could be clearer.

[Lancasterclaret]

Think the important point has already been highlighted on this thread but worth repeating that even the Conservatives have clarified it.

https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status ... 6839026689" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[martin_p]

Think the important point has already been highlighted on this thread but worth repeating that even the Conservatives have clarified it.

https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status ... 6839026689" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Fact checking Tory lies. Maybe Twitter should allow it to use it’s FactCheckUK name after all!

[Lancasterclaret]

Fact checking Tory lies. Maybe Twitter should allow it to use it’s FactCheckUK name after all!

Jesus yeah

Both Gove, Clevely and Raab car crash interviews on that need to be seen to be believed.

If anyone doubts that the Tories are not remotely interested in being questioned on what they do, then watching them will dispel any lingering doubts.

[tiger76]

I see Jeremy had a real working class upbringing not.

Jeremy Bernard Corbyn, 70, had a middle-class upbringing, spending his early years in the picturesque Wiltshire village of Kington St Michael.

When he was seven, the family moved to a seven-bedroom manor house in the hamlet of Pave Lane, in Shropshire.

The youngest of four boys, he enjoyed an idyllic childhood in what he himself has called a rural "Tory shire".

He briefly went to a fee-paying preparatory school before a state primary and then, after passing 11-plus, a grammar school, in Newport, Shropshire.

Do as i say not as i do,typical socialist politician

I'll considering voting for Labour when they get a sensible leader,shame as this pathetic Tory government deserve a kicking.

I fear i'll be spoiling my ballot paper,the last time i did that was in 2005,but none of them are fit to be PM.

I might have given the Greens my vote this time,but they're not contesting my area.

[martin_p]

I see Jeremy had a real working class upbringing not.

Jeremy Bernard Corbyn, 70, had a middle-class upbringing, spending his early years in the picturesque Wiltshire village of Kington St Michael.

When he was seven, the family moved to a seven-bedroom manor house in the hamlet of Pave Lane, in Shropshire.

The youngest of four boys, he enjoyed an idyllic childhood in what he himself has called a rural "Tory shire".

He briefly went to a fee-paying preparatory school before a state primary and then, after passing 11-plus, a grammar school, in Newport, Shropshire.

Do as i say not as i do,typical socialist politician

Has he claimed to have a working class upbringing? And as for going to a grammar school, lots of children did when Corbyn was growing up, they were a standard part of the education system.

[FactualFrank]

https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/upload ... o-2019.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[claretonthecoast1882]

https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/upload ... o-2019.pdf

Only got to the page 3 and they have spelt Jew with an F

[FactualFrank]

Christ on a unicycle, this is like the Yanks.

[Lancasterclaret]

Christ on a unicycle, this is like the Yanks.

I've turned it off.

I'll read the manifesto, but I can't stand this type of political launch with screaming and shouting.

its all a bit "take the name of the first person who stops clapping and cheering" for me.

[tiger76]

I've turned it off.

I'll read the manifesto, but I can't stand this type of political launch with screaming and shouting.

its all a bit "take the name of the first person who stops clapping and cheering" for me.

What do you expect from a room full of students LC

[Darthlaw]

The whooping is just plain irritating. I just heard the biggest set of it for the dropping of tuition fees, so I assume it's a yoof fing.

[dsr]

What do you expect from a room full of students LC

I expect a room full of jazz hands and silence.

[tiger76]

Has he claimed to have a working class upbringing? And as for going to a grammar school, lots of children did when Corbyn was growing up, they were a standard part of the education system.

He's always banging on about his roots,and if grammar school worked then why can't it work now ?

[dsr]

Has he claimed to have a working class upbringing? And as for going to a grammar school, lots of children did when Corbyn was growing up, they were a standard part of the education system.

I've no criticism of Corbyn's upbringing, and he hasn't (so far as I know) claimed it to be anything other than it is. It's just that many people have claimed that Boris can't claim to be a "man of the people" because his upbringing was privileged, while completely ignoring that the same is true of Corbyn.

[martin_p]

I've no criticism of Corbyn's upbringing, and he hasn't (so far as I know) claimed it to be anything other than it is. It's just that many people have claimed that Boris can't claim to be a "man of the people" because his upbringing was privileged, while completely ignoring that the same is true of Corbyn.

Going to a grammar school hardly counts as privileged, my dad went to grammar school and he was working class.

[tiger76]

The whooping is just plain irritating. I just heard the biggest set of it for the dropping of tuition fees, so I assume it's a yoof fing.

Has that policy been costed this time,remember 2017 when he had to backtrack on his promises.

Why Corbyn keeps chasing the student vote IDK they don't turnout in numbers,and in a December election are even less likely to vote.

[Lancasterclaret]

Has that policy been costed this time,remember 2017 when he had to backtrack on his promises.

Why Corbyn keeps chasing the student vote IDK they don't turnout in numbers,and in a December election are even less likely to vote.

Early reports suggest its been fully costed, but it will need some proper looking at.

Certainly populist and lots of good stuff in there.

[dsr]

Going to a grammar school hardly counts as privileged, my dad went to grammar school and he was working class.

This particular grammar school also included a fee-paying and boarding section. Not exactly like Colne or Nelson grammars.

Did your Dad live in a 7 bedroom house and go to prep school?

[Lancasterclaret]

Labour manifesto costs explained

https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status ... 9200466944" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Cryssys]

This particular grammar school also included a fee-paying and boarding section. Not exactly like Colne or Nelson grammars.

Did your Dad live in a 7 bedroom house and go to prep school?

His dad was an electrical engineer and his mum was a maths teacher. They worked for a living so hardly privileged. Sounds like they did OK for themselves though and did their best for their kids.

Boris Johnson however:

Johnson was born to upper-middle class British parents on 19 June 1964 in Manhattan's Upper East Side in New York City.[6][7] His father, Stanley Johnson, was then studying economics at Columbia University.[8] Johnson's mother is Charlotte Fawcett,[9] daughter of Sir James Fawcett and an artist from a family of liberal intellectuals. Johnson's parents married in 1963, before moving to the US.[10]

Johnson's parents lived opposite the Chelsea Hotel,[11] although in September 1964 they returned to Britain so that Charlotte could study at the University of Oxford.[12] She lived with her son in Summertown, Oxford, and gave birth to a daughter, Rachel, in 1965.[13] In July 1965, the family moved to Crouch End in North London;[14] in February 1966, they relocated to Washington, D.C., where Stanley had gained employment with the World Bank.[15] A third child, Leo, was born in September 1967.

Source: Wikipedia

[Lancasterclaret]

Both the Labs and the Lib Dems have costed their manifestos, or at least explained how they would do it (with assumptions of course, but in both cases not massive)

I hope the Conservatives do the same, but it would be absolutely what I'm expecting if they don't.

[Darthlaw]

Labour manifesto costs explained

https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status ... 9200466944" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Some of those are quite terrifying. In short:

How is Labour able to spend so much in its manifesto? - By changing the rules of accounting to suit their agenda.

[dsr]

His dad was an electrical engineer and his mum was a maths teacher. They worked for a living so hardly privileged. Sounds like they did OK for themselves though and did their best for their kids.

Boris Johnson however:

Johnson was born to upper-middle class British parents on 19 June 1964 in Manhattan's Upper East Side in New York City.[6][7] His father, Stanley Johnson, was then studying economics at Columbia University.[8] Johnson's mother is Charlotte Fawcett,[9] daughter of Sir James Fawcett and an artist from a family of liberal intellectuals. Johnson's parents married in 1963, before moving to the US.[10]

Johnson's parents lived opposite the Chelsea Hotel,[11] although in September 1964 they returned to Britain so that Charlotte could study at the University of Oxford.[12] She lived with her son in Summertown, Oxford, and gave birth to a daughter, Rachel, in 1965.[13] In July 1965, the family moved to Crouch End in North London;[14] in February 1966, they relocated to Washington, D.C., where Stanley had gained employment with the World Bank.[15] A third child, Leo, was born in September 1967.

Source: Wikipedia

You're =missing the point. As I said, I have no objection to Corbyn's background or his schooling or his parents doing well for themselves or any of that. All I object to is the people who deride Boris Johnson as "not understanding the working classes" while ignoring the fact that Corbyn's upbringing was not working class either. If you need to be have been brought up "working class" to understand the "working class", then neither Johnson nor Corbyn qualify.

[FactualFrank]

I missed some of it - did Corbyn answer whether he was leave or remain?

[dsr]

Both the Labs and the Lib Dems have costed their manifestos, or at least explained how they would do it (with assumptions of course, but in both cases not massive)

I hope the Conservatives do the same, but it would be absolutely what I'm expecting if they don't.

The assumption that nationalisation of gas, electricity, rail, Royal Mail, water, and Openreach, will cost nothing at all because the country will be getting an asset - that's a pretty big assumption.

[Lancasterclaret]

The assumption that nationalisation of gas, electricity, rail, Royal Mail, water, and Openreach, will cost nothing at all because the country will be getting an asset - that's a pretty big assumption.

Of course

But lets wait till we see if the Conservatives bother to attempt to cost theirs before we start criticising those that are trying to explain how they would do it.

[dsr]

Of course

But lets wait till we see if the Conservatives bother to attempt to cost theirs before we start criticising those that are trying to explain how they would do it.

Why? If someone is talking rubbish now, why should we wait until someone else starts talking (rubbish or otherwise) before criticising the first one?

[martin_p]

Some of those are quite terrifying. In short:

How is Labour able to spend so much in its manifesto? - By changing the rules of accounting to suit their agenda.

Yes terrifying! There can't be one of us that hasn't woken up in a cold sweat after a nightmare about the rules of accountancy changing.

[Lancasterclaret]

Why? If someone is talking rubbish now, why should we wait until someone else starts talking (rubbish or otherwise) before criticising the first one?

Because the feeling is (and I don't think I'm wrong on this) is that the Conservatives won't bother, and people who criticise Lab and Lib Dem attempts to explain their costing won't say a thing about the Conservative one.

I'm going to read all three before I criticise any attempts at costings for a start.

[Tall Paul]

Some of those are quite terrifying. In short:

How is Labour able to spend so much in its manifesto? - By changing the rules of accounting to suit their agenda.

Which accounting rules are they changing?

The assumption that nationalisation of gas, electricity, rail, Royal Mail, water, and Openreach, will cost nothing at all because the country will be getting an asset - that's a pretty big assumption.

It's not really., that's how capital expenditure is accounted for.

[Darthlaw]

Why? If someone is talking rubbish now, why should we wait until someone else starts talking (rubbish or otherwise) before criticising the first one?

Whataboutery doesn't function without someone to what about...

[Darthlaw]

Which accounting rules are they changing?

Changing public sector balance sheet rules:

Labour.jpeg

[Lancasterclaret]

Changing public sector balance sheet rules:

Labour.jpeg

Far from an expert on this, but isn't that how you do normal accountancy with stuff like that?

[Tall Paul]

Changing public sector balance sheet rules:

Labour.jpeg

That's not a change in accounting rules.

[dsr]

It's not really., that's how capital expenditure is accounted for.

Not in government finances. "Balancing the budget" in government means comparing receipts and expenditure. That's why Gordon Brown did his large scale PPI finance nonsense - because if he paid £250m for a hospital now, he had to find £250m funding for it; if he paid £1,000m over 25 years, he only had to find funding for £40m per year.

National debt is measured as how much the government owes; percentage national debt is measured against GDP. It isn't netted off by national assets. If the government chooses to spend £250m on a hospital, that is spending of £250m that has to be raised (sooner or later) from taxes. The Labour party's idea that a hospital is a capital asset and so the money can all be raised later, and none of it sooner, is foolish.

[Devils_Advocate]

I missed some of it - did Corbyn answer whether he was leave or remain?

Who cares, if he comes out one way or the other it will just be used as a tool to deflect from the real conversation and issues and a propaganda weapon for the right wingers and Brexiteers.

I would much rather see discussions and debates around what is best for the country and what the people think and want than I would about Corbyn's own personal view as he has clearly stated he is not pursuing his own ideology on this but trying to include everyone.

If anyone has any genuine concerns how Corbyn's own position not being stated is important and makes a difference than that is a fair discussion point but simply criticising his decision to remain neutral for now without any reason behind that criticism just seems pathetic

[Lancasterclaret]

Not in government finances. "Balancing the budget" in government means comparing receipts and expenditure. That's why Gordon Brown did his large scale PPI finance nonsense - because if he paid £250m for a hospital now, he had to find £250m funding for it; if he paid £1,000m over 25 years, he only had to find funding for £40m per year.

National debt is measured as how much the government owes; percentage national debt is measured against GDP. It isn't netted off by national assets. If the government chooses to spend £250m on a hospital, that is spending of £250m that has to be raised (sooner or later) from taxes. The Labour party's idea that a hospital is a capital asset and so the money can all be raised later, and none of it sooner, is foolish.

Yeah, but surely water, gas, electricity that are not in government control now are an asset when they come under government control?

[Tall Paul]

Not in government finances. "Balancing the budget" in government means comparing receipts and expenditure. That's why Gordon Brown did his large scale PPI finance nonsense - because if he paid £250m for a hospital now, he had to find £250m funding for it; if he paid £1,000m over 25 years, he only had to find funding for £40m per year.

National debt is measured as how much the government owes; percentage national debt is measured against GDP. It isn't netted off by national assets. If the government chooses to spend £250m on a hospital, that is spending of £250m that has to be raised (sooner or later) from taxes. The Labour party's idea that a hospital is a capital asset and so the money can all be raised later, and none of it sooner, is foolish.

Fair enough, but if the government is spending on an income generating asset like the utilities, surely it's wrong to write that expenditure off straight away and it makes more sense to account for it as any other entity would.

[dsr]

Far from an expert on this, but isn't that how you do normal accountancy with stuff like that?

Yes. Normal accountancy would show money borrowed to buy an asset as balance-sheet neutral; over time, the asset would depreciate in value and the loan would be repaid out of profits until both disappeared off the balance sheet when the asset was worn out and the loan repaid; hopefully with a profit as a result.

Government finances don't work like that. Probably the reason is that treating schools and hospitals this way, as Labour is proposing, is nonsense. Schools and hospitals don't make financial profits so the company financial model doesn't work. Government finances work on the basis of receipts and payments.

[Lancasterclaret]

Yes. Normal accountancy would show money borrowed to buy an asset as balance-sheet neutral; over time, the asset would depreciate in value and the loan would be repaid out of profits until both disappeared off the balance sheet when the asset was worn out and the loan repaid; hopefully with a profit as a result.

Government finances don't work like that. Probably the reason is that treating schools and hospitals this way, as Labour is proposing, is nonsense. Schools and hospitals don't make financial profits so the company financial model doesn't work. Government finances work on the basis of receipts and payments.

Cheers! Always keen to add to my knowledge!