Politics – General Election 2015 – Tory Claim, Labour to Increase Taxes by £3,068.
What is the truth behind this Tory Claim?
There are always Tory claims and Labour claims during an Election. Very few are accurate. Sometimes they seem to be pure fantasy. What about this Tory claim? What is it based on? The claim is that a future Labour government would raise taxes on every working family buy £3,068. That is a remarkably specific amount, so it must be true, mustn’t it? Not according to Labour, they dismiss it as being just made up, plucked out of the sky.
To begin with the claim says “every working family”. What is a working family and how many are there? According to the Office for National Statistics there are 17.4m families with at least one member working in the UK. Take out the working families in Northern Ireland, the Tory Claim says British families, and the figure becomes 17m.
So 17m x £3,068 and Labour would raise £51bn. What? Really? (Have I got the decimal point in the right place?). Labour is askance at the suggestion that it would need to raise that much through taxation. They would raise the top rate of tax, we know that. Mind you The Tory claim that that tax rise will not actually increase the tax take for the Exchequer. The Tory claim is based on their belief that Labour is committed to save £30bn a year as it has signed up to the Charter for Budget Responsibility. Labour denies that. Remember that the Tories do not want to borrow at all while Labour is happy to borrow for investment.
Confused yet? I will press on. The Tories claim that Labour has to raise £30bn either by tax rises or borrowing. They also claim that Ed Milliband said that he wanted a 50:50 split between tax rises and spending cuts. Milliband says that he has not committed to a 50:50 split. Even if he had and he did need to raise half of £30bn that is £15bn and not £51bn.
So have the Tories just reversed the figures? Apparently not. The Institute of Fiscal Affairs has the answer to where the original figure came from. The Tory claim has been beefed up. It is their calculation of the tax rise under Labour per working family over the life of the next parliament. So, what looks like a massive tax rise is, actually, not that big. The Institute of Fiscal Affairs also says that “Cumulating numbers like this over several years is, at best, unhelpful. Ignoring the existence of non-working households doesn’t help provide sensible averages either.”
Besides which, having analysed labour’s rules on taxing and spending the IFS calculates that Labour would need to borrow only £6bn, not £15bn, or £51bn.
Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics. We can look forward many more Tory claims and Labour counter claims. All the fun of an election and there are still weeks to go! What’s not to love?
Politics – General Election 2015 – The Leaders’ Debates, Now We Know Why Cameron Was Scared
General Election 2015 – Cameron Was Right to be Scared
David Cameron and Ed Milliband were interviewed this week on the same night by Paxman. On the night the studio audience said that Cameron had won. However, a strange thing has happened in the couple of days since. The viewing public has decided that Milliband won!
For months the two main parties have been neck and neck, each on about 34%. The Sunday Times commissioned a poll by YouGov. It showed that the Labour party is now 4% ahead of Cameron’s Tories!
There are more facets to the poll, and none of them make good reading for Cameron. While he is still ahead in the who would make the better Prime Minister stakes, Milliband is coming up. More worrying for Cameron is that when asked who is most in touch with real people, Cameron is not second behind Milliband. Cameron is third behind both Milliband and Farage! Milliband is seen as more trustworthy, genuine and in touch than Cameron.
Of course, one poll does not mean that the general election 2015 is decided. At present it suggests that Labour would get 314 seats, the Tories 251, SNP 48, and the Lib Dems 16. Not an overall majority, but enough to start working with to construct a government. Anything could happen, including votes for the SNP handing the government to Cameron.
Thinking about the polling. It seems that those questioned were people who actually watched the programmes. What you have to ask is what their voting patterns have been in the past. For example, if they were all Tory voters you would tend to think that they would favour Cameron and the reverse if they were all Labour voters. AS far as I can tell the sampling was balanced, more or less. What really matters is what the wider public get from the coverage. The first day after the interviews the coverage was all positive for Cameron, the following days less so. Certainly, the coverage today, Sunday, is quite dreadful for Cameron.
Even the Tory supporters are getting in on the act. Writing for “The Conservative Woman” blog Beatrice Timpson is scathing about Cameron’s preformance. Read it here. Not a happy woman.
Politics – General Election 2015 – The Polls
The latest General Election polls
I saw 2 polls in the papers yesterday.
The Observer Con 34%, Lab 35%, Lib Dem 6%, UKIP 14%, Greens 6%.
YouGov Con 34%, Lab 34%, Lib Dem 8%, UKIP 14%, Greens 5%
So the pattern of The Conservatives and Labour being neck and neck remains. Since 2011 Labour has been ahead in the polls, but never very far ahead.
What does it actually mean for the result of the general election? The traditional wisdom was that with both the main parties on 35% Labour would win a majority. The trouble is that the traditional wisdom does not hold. Labour’s vote in Scotland has collapsed, some heartland constituencies have seen a 25% swing to the SNP. The Tories are challenged by UKIP, which has picked up most of the votes that would have gone to the BNP.
There are other factors to consider, even in 2012 The Telegraph was arguing that the Tories could not win a majority. One of the reason being that the Tories attract less than 20% of the ethnic minority vote. As they move out of Labour heartlands they take their votes with them diluting the traditional Tory vote.
What else is going on as we move towards the general election 2015? Look at the Liberal Democrats. Their vote has collapsed so where will it go? In the past Liberal Democrats have looked to the left to ward off the Tories. Well, that did not work, all Clegg did was to rush into bed with Cameron. That does not persuade Lib Dem supporters to return to the fold, they fear that he might do it again. Those that voted Labour last time will stick with Labour. Those that voted Lib Dem last time have had their fingers burned, many will not do it again. They are also, as group, very likely to vote for soemone. They will vote Labour.
Some Tories are saying that they need an 11% lead in the polls to win a majority. That is too high but they certainly need a bigger lead than Labour does to win a majority at the next general election. The truth is that unless there a significant shift we are heading for Labour being the biggest party at the next general election, but without a majority. So, a coalition. Maybe not. Cameron, wanting to hold on to power, would probably try to run a minority government if the Tories were the biggest party or could argue that they won the popula vote. Not an impossible scenario. A difficult trick as their only natural supporters would the rabid UKIP mob. Labour could try running a minority government without a formal coalition. They would look for support from the SNP and the Liberal Democrats on a case by case basis.
Who said that the general election 2015 is boring?
Politics – The Save Dave Cameron Plan – General election 2015
The Sunday Times Says That Senior Tories Want to Save Dave Cameron.
The story runs that despite all the public pronouncements about winning the General election outright a plan is being hatched to save Dave Cameron should he not win the general election.
In spite of a somewhat lack luster performance by Miliband so far the Tories are worried. So they should be with the polls close and them no where near the sort of popular support that would guarantee a victory. Anything other than a straight forward Tory majority would be bad news for Dave Cameron.
He “won” last time against a hugely unpopular Prime Minister but still had to form a coalition to become Prime Minister. Not to win out right this time against a weak leader of the opposition is unthinkable, if he wants to survive as the leader of the Tory party, and he does. Desperately.
George Osborne told his MPs that they would all be re-elected, but they do not believe him. Apparently one minister is ready to call for Dave Cameron to fall on his sword if he does not win. The knives are not out, but they are being sharpened. There are mutterings that Dave Cameron and his cronies should be planning to win, not planning and escape route to save their jobs.
However, Dave Cameron has a crafty wheeze up his sleeve. Should he lead the largest party, but without a majority, it seems as if he will try form a government without a coalition. The thinking is that there will be about 20 ministerial and government posts available to hand out after the general election in 2015. Those belong to the Liberal Democrats at the moment. 20 posts would make for a lot of goodwill from power hungry Tory MPs.
The other scenario has Labour as the largest party. A coalition with the Liberal Democrats would be fragile. This time round they would drive a harder bargain. They would not be so naive. Dave Cameron would say to his MPs that to ditch him then would be foolish. A new, untested leader would be a mistake in those circumstances.
Dave Cameron is the one with the big problem. Perhaps the biggest problem for him is that the loyalty of his friends is not guaranteed. The Tory party is a ruthless party.
Politics – general election 2015 – UKIP Backs the Tories
Politics – UKIP Backs the Tories on Deficit Plans
Vote UKIP and get the Tories seems to be the message. Recent polls suggest that no one (of a sane mind) thinks that UKIP is anything more than a 12 month wonder.
Just as the polls suggest that most people see UKIP as a temporary refuge for their votes (very few people see them as existing in 10 years time according to BBc polling) UKIP says that the Tories’ plans on deficit reduction after the next general election 2015 are something that they will back.
The message is clear. Vote UKIP and if there is not an over all Tory majority they will support Cameron – assuming that he would survive the kicking that he would get if the Tories do not get if he did not get a majority. (That is a kicking from his “honorable friends”). The men in grey suits resemble Brutus.
The arithmetic of a hung House of Commons is fascinating, at least to me, that the Tories could be supported by UKIP that has gained a lot of support from the failing (thank god) BNP is understandable. They are the same really, but where Nick Clegg would be selling his soul, this time, is more interesting. If he survives a vote meltdown will he support the toxic Tory Party or the lamentable Labour Party?
My feeling is that he will do anything – remember his dumping of his pledge about student fees – to secure a tenuous grip on power. The only vaguely interesting question is which way he will jump. His party would want to go to the left but his preference may well be to hitch his wagon to any party that would allow him to have a nice job title “Deputy Prime Minister” or “The one that is ignored by the Prime Minister”.
I started writing this concerned about the fecklessness of UKIP and ended up talking the fecklessness of Nick Clegg. Why are they the same?
Things I don’t understand – 1 – The Greek Debt
What is the Problem with the Greek Debt?
Some history, Greece entered the Euro zone in 2001, giving up the Drachma. Everything went swimmingly until about 2009. What happened in between?
One of the things about the Greeks is that they made tax avoidance a national sport. They also started paying the civil servants lots. On top of that they all retired young, very young.
To cover the shortfall between the non existent tax income and the payments out the Greek government sold their debts. France and Germany were happy to buy the bonds for guaranteed income and governments don’t go broke, do they?
Then, of course people realised that the American banks had been trading in worthless junk bonds based on worthless mortgages on shacks. As the extent of the mess that the bankers had got us all into became clear the balloon went up over the Greek debt. All of a sudden the Greek debt did not seem all that secure. People started selling the bonds. Greece kept selling bonds to make up its shortfall, and the interest it had to promise to pay to keep making the sales went up and up.
It all had to end in tears. The Europeans, who had been happy to let the Greek debt spiral, watched as the plug was pulled. Then they sent in the accountants. The answer was to get the Greeks to pay back the money, cut public spending, and apologise (I made the last bit up).
OK, so my analysis may lack in detail, and accuracy, but the history is not what I do not understand, hard as it might be to believe.
What I Do Not Understand About The Greek Debt
Is
The Greek debt, which the Germans say can not be written of is €315 billion. And yet the European Central Bank are preparing to create out of nothing €1.1 trillion for a programme of quantitative easing.
Why Not Just Give The Greeks Some of That €1.1 trillion?
That would get rid of the Greek debt, at a stroke!
What have I missed? Makes sense to me.
Garden – The Trees are Coming Down.
No Longer a Dark Garden?
There was an answering machine message when I got home yesterday. The lady next door had left the message to say that he son was arriving in the morning to cut down her trees.
I have mixed feelings about this. There are 2 large, very large Leylandii next to my garden fence and so I would not mind them going. Further up the garden they have a Spruce which is large and looking weary. Up from that (these are all along the fence) are a couple of smaller trees. The result is that the right hand side of my garden is in shade and is dry. Removing the Leylandii would help the light and dryness. I would be sorry to see the Spruce go as I have always had a soft spot for Spruce trees. However, they really are not garden trees.
What worries me more is that they may be thinking of taking down all the other trees in their garden. Their garden is wreathed in mature trees, Horse Chestnut, Sycamore, and various large (overgrown) bushes. None of the trees should be in a domestic garden, that is true, but they are there now and they contribute to the large number of birds that visit my garden. I also wonder whether some of the local bats roost in them.
Two years ago a neighbour just down the road sold part of their garden and a house was built on it. Down came the trees and the local bird and bat population took a hit. I just hope that the same is not about to happen again.
So happy, that the garden will no longer have a dark dry bed, and that the Green house will get more light. Happy that another tree will not come crashing down – one of mine succumbed to the gales a few years ago. I just hope that it won’t be a crash and burn exercise.
Politics – General Election 2015 – Tory Bribe Extended
Tory “Granny Bonds” on Sale for Longer.
Tory Chancellor George Osborne has extended the deadline for the pensioner band for another 3 months. That is, until after the election. The bonds, provided by National Savings and Investments, are backed by the government. They give up to 4% interest over 3 years which is far more than is currently available to savers.
The BBC’s Joe Lynam said; “We knew these pensioner bonds would be popular but few expected them to be this popular. Their arrival three weeks ago has flushed out billions of pounds of cash owned by older people. They’ve found a safe new place to park their money, with incredibly generous rates of interest. The original ceiling of £10bn has been scrapped simply because the (Tory) chancellor and his deputy (Liberal Democrat) Danny Alexander didn’t want to risk the ire of such a key voting demographic who might have missed out on such a lucrative opportunity.
The fact that the newly created window for investing in pensioner bonds closes almost as the general election polls do is a happy coincidence”.
But what is the cost of this Tory policy? The government borrows money at 1.2 % it lends it out at 4%. That is not good economics. There has been another, unexpected, consequence. According to Which? “Our new study indicates that 63 savings accounts, Isas or bonds had their interest rate lowered in the seven days following the launch of the market-leading pensioner bonds by National Savings & Investments on 15 January”. In other words as the Tory policy is going to underwrite more than £10bn in savings there is no longer the need for financial institutions to battle for the savings market. They have slashed their rates for the rest of us. Critics will say that ordinary working-age taxpayers will be subsidising an often wealthy group of pensioners whose homes have multiplied in value and whose company pensions are far more generous than will be the case when younger generations Generation retire.
The Institute for Economic Affairs, criticised the extension of the scheme, arguing that it was distorting the market. “This announcement well and truly proves that we are not all in it together,” said Director General of the Institute for Economic Affairs Mark Littlewood. “Borrowing more expensively than the government needs to is effectively a direct subsidy to wealthy pensioners from the working-age population.” Since when has that bothered a Tory Chancellor? Mr Littlewood went on to say “Pensioner bonds have never been anything other than a gimmick that will benefit pensioners at the expense of the taxpayer, and it beggars belief that the government is prolonging such a foolish policy.”
The Tory Chancellor has said that the cost of extending the scheme would be in the region of “several hundred million of pounds”.
Labour’s shadow Treasury minister Chris Leslie said pensioners had suffered under the coalition thanks to the rise in VAT and changes to age-related personal allowances. “Don’t be surprised if George Osborne, as we get closer to an election, tries to give away all sorts of things when, actually, he is trying to erase the memory of how much he has taken away from pensioners. And he has not said where he is going to get the money for this. What other public services are going to suffer as a result?”
Politics – General Election 2015 – Labour and Big Business
Labour Attacked by the Boss of Boots The Chemist
The Labour Party was attacked at the weekend by Stefano Pessina who is the Executive Chairman of Walgreens Boots Alliance which owns Boots The Chemist. He said that a Labour government would be bad for business and bad for the country. He said “If they (Labour) acted as they speak, it would be a catastrophe.”As he lives in Monaco, naturally, Labour has attacked him for being a tax exile. Presumably, they meant an Italian tax exile.
What seems to be happening is that whereas previous Labour leaders went out of their way to be nice to big business Milliband is not as concerned about the issue. As everyone thinks that big businesses spend most of their time avoiding, if not evading, tax perhaps Milliband relishes taking them on. More people are sceptical of the way businesses are run and try to evade their responsibilities. That could play well for the Labour Leader.
In the meantime the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph have criticised the Labour leader and that was “trying to shut down” criticism of his policies with “personal attacks” on critics. No surprise there, when they start supporting Labour that would be news. The former boss at Marks and Sparks, Lord Rose weighed in against labour’s business policies. As he is a Tory peer that is also not much of a surprise.
Peter Mendelson has warned the Labour leadership to be careful about the language it uses about its approach to big businesses. Along with various
What big business seems to dislike, amongst other things, is the pledge to raise the top rate of tax from 45p to 50p and the proposed freeze of electricity and gas bills. Anything that gets in the way of profits is a “Bad Thing”, obviously. Just like the minimum wage which was attacked by big business. All right thinking people know that what is required is less legislation and control over businesses.
POLITICS – General Election 2015 When is a Tory Cut not a Cut?
Tory Education Promise Not What it Seems
Who would have thought that politicians would say one thing and mean another? On Sunday Nicky Morgan, who ‘replaced’ Michael Gove as Education Secretary said that spending on education would be ring fenced should the Tory party win the general election 2015. Actually, she said that education spending in schools would be ring fenced. Not education spending as a whole, just the spending on schools.
That leaves the way open for cuts to pre-school and higher education spending.
Yesterday Cameron ‘clarified’ what the Tory pledge means. It seems that spending (only on schools, remember) would be protected only to the extent of “flat cash” per pupil spending. In other words as inflation goes up the spending would not. That is a cut.
Mr Cameron said this would mean “difficult decisions”. Now, there is an euphemism if there ever was one, he means that education will be clobbered, but only after we have been so stupid as to re-elect him. He went on to say that the government had demonstrated that with greater efficiency “more could be achieved with less”. That Euphemism means that Cameron cuts the budget and those of goodwill takes up the slack, the big society and all that. You know the sort of thing, we threaten to close the local library, you volunteer to work in it for free.
Labour’s shadow Education Secretary, Tristram Hunt, said that Tory claims to protect funding were “unravelling” and represented a “real-terms cut”. Mr Hunt went on to say; “The truth is that you can’t protect schools when you have plans to take spending as a share of GDP back to levels not seen since the 1930s.” I have not done the sums, and have no reason to believe Hunt’s at face value but I see where he is coming from. The Tory party has a philosophy built on the belief that the ‘state’ should be as small as possible. That is why they voted against the NHS when the Labour party brought it in. They are only being true to their core beliefs. The Tory party may say “we will protect the Welfare State” what they really mean is “screw you, if you do not have enough money to buy health insurance or pay school fees from their friends.”
The Liberal Democrat’s schools minister was typically scathing and harsh. He said that Cameron’s financial commitment was “unbelievably weak”. Believe me, for a Lib Dem THAT is being very harsh. In a hard hitting, incisive, analysis he said that the Tory commitments would mean a real term cut for schools and deep cuts in spending on pre-school and post 16 education.
Talking about school standards Cameron said that the Tory party “won’t tolerate failure”, they would raise achievement in 3,500 schools rated “requires improvement” by Ofsted. All this with a real term cut over the next 5 years. A good trick if you could do it, but then they can’t and they don’t care. Not only because the Tory party does not believe in the State helping those of us who can not pay school fees, but because it is impossible to raise standards and to cut resources at the same time.
Cameron went on, he said that the Tory party “won’t tolerate failure” schools that are rated as requiring improvement would have new leaderships imposed on them. They would have to be taken over by academy sponsors. Big and good academies would take over small and failing academies. Failing schools would sack their headmasters, he did not mention public flogging but surely that can not be long in coming.
For her part Nicky Morgan did not say that the Tory party would automatically sack the heads “Where a school doesn’t have the capacity to improve itself, and many do, or where they don’t have a plan that is going to lead to that school being rated good or outstanding, then one of the answers might be to get new leadership in.”
Sounds like sacking the heads of failing schools to me.
Cameron said “No-one wants their child to go to a failing school and no-one wants to them to go to a coasting school either, Just enough is not good enough. That means no more sink schools and no more ‘bog standard” he went on to say “Our aim is this: the best start in life for every child, wherever they’re from – no excuses.”
Good for Cameron, the best for all children, especially if they can afford to pay fees.
Phil’s British Heart Foundation Donation – you know it makes sense
