The UK Politics and EU Referendum thread - merged

[Woodsey]

Fucks sake hope this doesn't happen, that will totally balls up my 10 year plan 

May as well go and do some shite lower paid job with less hassle....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/pensions/12115198/52-days-left-of-66pc-pension-tax-relief-boost-This-is-what-you-need-to-do.html

That potentially could really fuck up the personal pensions industry, the tax relief is the best thing about it.

I think if they do this, what they'll use as their go to response is that most workers will be better off because the new workplace pensions scheme encourages employers to make payments.

Obv I'll reserve judgement to see what this 'pension-isa' thingy is all about, but seems terrible to me.

I'd even vote for a centre left govt it they promised to retain this, that's how big a deal it is to me #Judas 

[DaveShoelace]

Fucks sake hope this doesn't happen, that will totally balls up my 10 year plan 

May as well go and do some shite lower paid job with less hassle....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/pensions/12115198/52-days-left-of-66pc-pension-tax-relief-boost-This-is-what-you-need-to-do.html

That potentially could really fuck up the personal pensions industry, the tax relief is the best thing about it.

I think if they do this, what they'll use as their go to response is that most workers will be better off because the new workplace pensions scheme encourages employers to make payments.

Obv I'll reserve judgement to see what this 'pension-isa' thingy is all about, but seems terrible to me.

I'd even vote for a centre left govt it they promised to retain this, that's how big a deal it is to me #Judas 

You bloody lefty tree hugger, get off to your drum circle with Corbyn.

[RickBFA]

Osborne is really cracking down on pension benefits for higher earners.

Doesn't feel like the type of policy you would see Tories follow.

The three main changes are the lifetime allowance reducing to £1m, reducing what any one earning over £150k can pay into pension from £40k per annum down to £10k in the most extreme case and then the very likely axing of higher rate relief.

Osborne is under pressure because as auto enrolment schemes kick in, his tax relief bill is significantly increasing as all employees get at least basic rate tax relief, more people are members of schemes than ever before.

There are transitional arrangements in place to give an increased potential pension contribution in this tax year but higher rate tax payers should get cracking now rather than waiting for the tax year end when it may be too late (the budget is 16th March).

One other idea he is considering is a move from what is know as EET (tax exempt going in, tax exempt during investment but taxed when taking income) to TEE (removing tax breaks going in, keeping funds tax exempt whilst growing but possibly tax exempt when taking an income - like ISA's).

Interesting to see what he does.

[TightEnd]

this is an interesting and balanced article

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/01/labour-wont-split-mps-are-preparing-reckoning-jeremy-corbyn

[PokerBroker]

this is an interesting and balanced article

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/01/labour-wont-split-mps-are-preparing-reckoning-jeremy-corbyn

Probably the most balanced piece I've seen. 

I don't know what the answer is for Labour, there are far to many factions and rifts.  Corbyn, despite all his well held beliefs doesn't strike as the sort of person who can be ruthless enough to make an electable leader.   That said, there was nobody powering through with leadership credentials.   Of those in the background who could be leader, I'm not sure they have the personality to unite the party.   

A new party, would be possible but unelectable to office unless of course there was a shift in the election system.  That seems most unlikely.

[Doobs]

Nobody going to discuss Cecil Parkinson?  Astonishing that he could go his whole life without meeting his disabled daughter.  I just don't understand how anybody could do that.

That just reminded me of the poem at the end of this piece I read post Bowie's death. It didn't seem to have a home here, but it is a brilliant piece of writing about parenting a disabled child.

http://dokearney.blogspot.ie/2014/08/the-son-i-never-had.html

I think of the poem many times whilst parenting, which appears to be an endless struggle to avoid fucking them up too much.

The Bowie piece that lead me there is here, and it is also an interesting blog.

http://dokearney.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/a-beautiful-exit.html

[TightEnd]

Jeremy Corbyn at odds with voters over his policy on nuclear deterrent, new poll reveals http://bit.ly/1ORqBs8

[MintTrav]

Jeremy Corbyn at odds with voters over his policy on nuclear deterrent weapons, new poll reveals http://bit.ly/1ORqBs8

fyp as 'deterrent' is an opinion.


52% v 44% on Trident. Not as resounding as the ES would have us believe.

Click to see full-size image.

[DungBeetle]

The nuclear deterrent is not an opinion, it's a defined theory whether you agree with it or not.

"Deterrence theory holds that nuclear weapons are intended to deter other states from attacking with their nuclear weapons, through the promise of retaliation and possibly mutually assured destruction"

[DungBeetle]

So it's not just Corbyn who can come out with the wrong wording. Cameron is getting it in the neck, not just from Corbyn's gang, but also the likes of Yvette Cooper and Chuka Umunna, for calling refugees a 'bunch of migrants'. Surely it was a slip, not a planned expression?

FWIW I think Cameron did this deliberately.  Use a phrase the vast majority of the electorate aren't offended by but get Labour politicians wailing about it all over TV so reinforcing that Labour is fiercely pro-imigration.  Played a blinder imo.

[MintTrav]

The nuclear deterrent is not an opinion, it's a defined theory whether you agree with it or not.

"Deterrence theory holds that nuclear weapons are intended to deter other states from attacking with their nuclear weapons, through the promise of retaliation and possibly mutually assured destruction"

So we agree - nuclear deterrence is not definite; could be wrong.

[DungBeetle]

It's a theory and could indeed be wrong.  But using "nuclear deterrent" in a question is fine?

[MintTrav]

So it's not just Corbyn who can come out with the wrong wording. Cameron is getting it in the neck, not just from Corbyn's gang, but also the likes of Yvette Cooper and Chuka Umunna, for calling refugees a 'bunch of migrants'. Surely it was a slip, not a planned expression?

FWIW I think Cameron did this deliberately. Use a phrase the vast majority of the electorate aren't offended by but get Labour politicians wailing about it all over TV so reinforcing that Labour is fiercely pro-imigration.  Played a blinder imo.

On reflection, I'm inclined to agree with you. I worked in two government departments and every Parliamentary Question, just for ordinary Ministers, was treated like something sacred. Everything else would be dropped if there was a PQ about your area and an extraordinary amount of attention was given to the detail and wording of the answer. Hours of work would go into what might end up being a very short answer. In particular, every possible Supplementry Question was pre-emptied and answered, as they were the real killers, to avoid the Minister getting into difficulty in the House.

PMQs is different, but that was a prepared piece, though politically-written rather than by the Civil Service.

[DungBeetle]

So it's not just Corbyn who can come out with the wrong wording. Cameron is getting it in the neck, not just from Corbyn's gang, but also the likes of Yvette Cooper and Chuka Umunna, for calling refugees a 'bunch of migrants'. Surely it was a slip, not a planned expression?

FWIW I think Cameron did this deliberately. Use a phrase the vast majority of the electorate aren't offended by but get Labour politicians wailing about it all over TV so reinforcing that Labour is fiercely pro-imigration.  Played a blinder imo.

On reflection, I'm inclined to agree with you. I worked in two government departments and every Parliamentary Question, just for ordinary Ministers, was treated like something sacred. Everything else would be dropped if there was a PQ about your area and an extraordinary amount of attention was given to the detail and wording of the answer. Hours of work would go into what might end up being a very short answer. In particular, every possible Supplementry Question was pre-emptied and answered, as they were the real killers, to avoid the Minister getting into difficulty in the House.

PMQs is different, but that was a prepared piece, though politically-written rather than by the Civil Service.

And an added bonus for Cameron was that it has distracted from the Google tax settlement which should be examined in detail by parliament in my opinion.

[DaveShoelace]

So it's not just Corbyn who can come out with the wrong wording. Cameron is getting it in the neck, not just from Corbyn's gang, but also the likes of Yvette Cooper and Chuka Umunna, for calling refugees a 'bunch of migrants'. Surely it was a slip, not a planned expression?

FWIW I think Cameron did this deliberately. Use a phrase the vast majority of the electorate aren't offended by but get Labour politicians wailing about it all over TV so reinforcing that Labour is fiercely pro-imigration.  Played a blinder imo.

On reflection, I'm inclined to agree with you. I worked in two government departments and every Parliamentary Question, just for ordinary Ministers, was treated like something sacred. Everything else would be dropped if there was a PQ about your area and an extraordinary amount of attention was given to the detail and wording of the answer. Hours of work would go into what might end up being a very short answer. In particular, every possible Supplementry Question was pre-emptied and answered, as they were the real killers, to avoid the Minister getting into difficulty in the House.

PMQs is different, but that was a prepared piece, though politically-written rather than by the Civil Service.

And an added bonus for Cameron was that it has distracted from the Google tax settlement which should be examined in detail by parliament in my opinion.

Yes this.

Someone explain this whole Google thing for me. I understand entirely why we give tax breaks to big companies that employ lots of Brits and I am for that generally (for a couple of % not the huge amounts here). Why the hell would any Government not want to force Google to pay more?

I don't get the 'it's just an old boys club' argument in this case, I refuse to believe any political party would not pursue a big cash cow like this. I suspect they in some other way benefit from Google paying fuck all on their tax of course, but how?