Reform UK going from strength to strength.

[Highlandmagar]

25 minutes ago, Jedi2 said:

You need to keep up with the IFS old bean: From 20th June (bit of an update on 'April' and 25 mind into the Interview for the IFS spokesperson:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m002080n

Where he points out that 'potential' cuts to unprotected budgets 'could' be between £6 and £16 billion, not the £18 billion the SNP lied about. There is also an admission that these figures are based on a one year projection not the 5 year term. In other news..the economy is also growing more quickly than expected

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c6p2r9xzde4o.amp

Up by 0.7% in the first quarter according to the ONS, which will lead to both inflation remaining lower and the B of E being able to cut interest rates now, which in turn means the UK govt can borrow more than expected, and again in turn, that 'cuts' to unprotected budgets would be lower as a result.

The IFS spokesperson in the Radio Scotland interview, (he was on for a whole 8 minutes) did also points out that the SNP's plans for Independence would lead to a decade of cuts to public services without significant tax hikes.

So, Labour plans not 'just' reliant upon Windfall taxes on oil and gas, but, in a growing economy, more space now for borrowing (as well as VAT on private schools, taxes on property developers profits, increase in Capital Gains tax, and, with more people in employment (unemployment currently falling) more comes in from income tax and NI.

'None of the above'. It would be quite something for any party to spend 5 years implementing 'none' of their Manifesto.

 

You can guarantee that Labour will inmplement  what's not in the manifesto. Make the poor poorer and the rich richer and to privatise the NHS through the back door 

[lichtgilphead]

49 minutes ago, Jedi2 said:

You need to keep up with the IFS old bean: From 20th June (bit of an update on 'April' and 25 mind into the Interview for the IFS spokesperson:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m002080n

Where he points out that 'potential' cuts to unprotected budgets 'could' be between £6 and £16 billion, not the £18 billion the SNP lied about. There is also an admission that these figures are based on a one year projection not the 5 year term. In other news..the economy is also growing more quickly than expected

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c6p2r9xzde4o.amp

Up by 0.7% in the first quarter according to the ONS, which will lead to both inflation remaining lower and the B of E being able to cut interest rates now, which in turn means the UK govt can borrow more than expected, and again in turn, that 'cuts' to unprotected budgets would be lower as a result.

The IFS spokesperson in the Radio Scotland interview, (he was on for a whole 8 minutes) did also points out that the SNP's plans for Independence would lead to a decade of cuts to public services without significant tax hikes.

So, Labour plans not 'just' reliant upon Windfall taxes on oil and gas, but, in a growing economy, more space now for borrowing (as well as VAT on private schools, taxes on property developers profits, increase in Capital Gains tax, and, with more people in employment (unemployment currently falling) more comes in from income tax and NI.

'None of the above'. It would be quite something for any party to spend 5 years implementing 'none' of their Manifesto.

 

And yet again, Jedi tells lies about what the IFS spokesman says in the 8 minute interview,

I've previously asked exactly where the IFS spokesman says "that these figures are based on a one year projection not the 5 year term". Jedi hasn't replied. I suspect that it's because the IFS spokesman says no such thing. 

Over to you, Jedi - all you need to do is point out exactly where in the 8 minutes he says this.

 

[The Other Foot]

18 hours ago, btb said:

I say this as a man who hates & fears Farage & whatever he names his grifter party.

He forced the Brexit Referendum and since then the Conservative party ever rightwards pretty much setting the agenda for the forthcoming GE, Starmer's Labour are offering little more than to manage austerity a little better than the Tories in the upcoming GE - Farage may not (yet) have won a parliamentary seat under our FPTP system but he's the UK Politician of the New Millennium so far. 

A pox on Cameron & Corbyn for their complacency in 2016!

I think you’re right. I would never vote for him, but he is a formidable political machine. A smart man, who usually finds himself leading a group of complete morons.
 

Someone like that is usually quite dangerous, but I don’t think he has a real killer instinct. He’s a puppy dog. I don’t fear him in the slightest. I fear people like Thatcher and Blair who have been in power, who have had the chance to use it for good, but have instead fallen very deeply into the shadow. 

 

In addition - I don’t actually think Farage will win his seat.

[SandyCromarty]

Increasing Windfall taxes will just see the majors move away to more profitable climes,Guyana for example.

The North Sea drilling and production costs are very high compared to other areas but successive British Governments have given good tax breaks on exploration if a company has a oil production platform, an increase on the Windfall tax would wipe out the tax break and then it's adios.

No Government anywhere in the world tells one of the majors how to run their business. FACT.

VAT on school fees would see a massive pupil exodus from private to state schools and the increased cost to us the taxpayer.

They will not achieve taxing the non doms, the rich or companies such as Amazon as they all move their residential status overseas, Labour knows that but they will peddle their manifesto bollocks to please the believers.

Labour runs on pie in the sky ideas, we've seen it all before.

Things is they will win this election by a landslide and then run the country into the ground for five years then disappear for the next ten years or so.

It's the same shite over and over and it's time Scotland broke away from this Westminster pantomime.

[Jedi2]

2 hours ago, lichtgilphead said:

And yet again, Jedi tells lies about what the IFS spokesman says in the 8 minute interview,

I've previously asked exactly where the IFS spokesman says "that these figures are based on a one year projection not the 5 year term". Jedi hasn't replied. I suspect that it's because the IFS spokesman says no such thing. 

Over to you, Jedi - all you need to do is point out exactly where in the 8 minutes he says this.

 

That pesky IFS again: Here they are, speaking this time on June 22nd, about not being able to make projections beyond March 2025:

We have already discussed the fact that the lack of department-by-department plans after this year means that we are uncertain about the path of spending on particular public services, and that we are unable to evaluate the 'cost' of committing to a given path of spending

We do not know how total spending will be allocated between public services after next March, and, with a few exceptions, neither manifesto offered much light.

https://www.morningstar.co.uk/uk/news/AN_1719049537523141900/uk-party-manifestos-suggest-cuts-likely-in-next-government---ifs.aspx

I know that an extra 2 minutes of the Radio Scotland interview was 'too long' for you to listen to, but still no acknowledgement, weeks later, of the IFS estimate of a decade of public sector cuts under the SNP's plans.

[Jedi2]

21 minutes ago, SandyCromarty said:

Increasing Windfall taxes will just see the majors move away to more profitable climes,Guyana for example.

The North Sea drilling and production costs are very high compared to other areas but successive British Governments have given good tax breaks on exploration if a company has a oil production platform, an increase on the Windfall tax would wipe out the tax break and then it's adios.

No Government anywhere in the world tells one of the majors how to run their business. FACT.

VAT on school fees would see a massive pupil exodus from private to state schools and the increased cost to us the taxpayer.

They will not achieve taxing the non doms, the rich or companies such as Amazon as they all move their residential status overseas, Labour knows that but they will peddle their manifesto bollocks to please the believers.

Labour runs on pie in the sky ideas, we've seen it all before.

Things is they will win this election by a landslide and then run the country into the ground for five years then disappear for the next ten years or so.

It's the same shite over and over and it's time Scotland broke away from this Westminster pantomime.

You mean like when Shell (profit £22 billion) BP (profit £14 billion) and others, fled the UK when Jeremy Hunt slapped a 35% Windfall Tax (an increase of 10% from the previous year),on their profits in January 2023..think they are still here.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60295177.amp

Or the whole 5% of kids who go to Private Schools will mostly be leaving? Don't think so. Rather think that they will be more than able to afford an 'increase'. After all, fees of between £20-30K a year already aren't an issue.

Meanwhile it's fine and dandy to slap tax hikes on 'high' earners (by the SNP's definition) on £28,000 a year, but not oil and gas companies, private schools, or property developers.

It's interesting that you mention 'disappearing' for 'ten years or so', a decade in other words, that the SNP plan to use to 'disappear' even moderate functioning of public services in Scotland for.....but its all worth it in the 'long term'. How long it would take to rebuild those public services is anyone's guess.

 

Edited July 2 by Jedi2

[ICTChris]

Reform candidate in Orkney and Shetland got his finger on the pulse of local issues.

My mum and dad were in Shetland a few weeks back, will check with them if there are “transexuals everywhere”.

[Freedom Farter]

20 minutes ago, ICTChris said:

Reform candidate in Orkney and Shetland got his finger on the pulse of local issues.

My mum and dad were in Shetland a few weeks back, will check with them if there are “transexuals everywhere”.

"The corporations have to comply in order to access finance".

He's on the side of the little guy, the corporations. 

[lichtgilphead]

1 hour ago, Jedi2 said:

That pesky IFS again: Here they are, speaking this time on June 22nd, about not being able to make projections beyond March 2025:

We have already discussed the fact that the lack of department-by-department plans after this year means that we are uncertain about the path of spending on particular public services, and that we are unable to evaluate the 'cost' of committing to a given path of spending

We do not know how total spending will be allocated between public services after next March, and, with a few exceptions, neither manifesto offered much light.

https://www.morningstar.co.uk/uk/news/AN_1719049537523141900/uk-party-manifestos-suggest-cuts-likely-in-next-government---ifs.aspx

For f*cks sake Jedi, you can't say that the IFS spokesman said "that these figures are based on a one year projection not the 5 year term". in a radio interview (which he didn't) then link to something that the IFS said 6 days later in a newspaper as proof of what was said in that interview.

That's fundimentally dishonest.

How about the next time you try to make a point, you link to the place that the person quoted actually said these words?

1 hour ago, Jedi2 said:

I know that an extra 2 minutes of the Radio Scotland interview was 'too long' for you to listen to, but still no acknowledgement, weeks later, of the IFS estimate of a decade of public sector cuts under the SNP's plans.

No?

Look at my quote in the Latest Polls thread at 22:46 on 22/06/2024

Your original post talked about a decade of austerity. I've set out some cuts I would make, pointed out that the finances of iScotland will depend on the settlement & said that I'm happy to look at the long -term advantage of never electing a tory government again as sufficient justification for any potential additional costs. What more do you expect me to say?

I consider that to be a pretty comprehensive reply. You're not getting anything more. I'll look forward to your apology.

[Jedi2]

2 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said:

For f*cks sake Jedi, you can't say that the IFS spokesman said "that these figures are based on a one year projection not the 5 year term". in a radio interview (which he didn't) then link to something that the IFS said 6 days later in a newspaper as proof of what was said in that interview.

That's fundimentally dishonest.

How about the next time you try to make a point, you link to the place that the person quoted actually said these words?

No?

Look at my quote in the Latest Polls thread at 22:46 on 22/06/2024

Your original post talked about a decade of austerity. I've set out some cuts I would make, pointed out that the finances of iScotland will depend on the settlement & said that I'm happy to look at the long -term advantage of never electing a tory government again as sufficient justification for any potential additional costs. What more do you expect me to say?

I consider that to be a pretty comprehensive reply. You're not getting anything more. I'll look forward to your apology.

Apology? For your condescending arrogance and constant 'intellectual superiority',continual inference of my uneducated numbskullness and your colossal intellectual capacity by comparison.

[lichtgilphead]

1 minute ago, Jedi2 said:

Apology? For your condescending arrogance and constant 'intellectual superiority',continual inference of my uneducated numbskullness and your colossal intellectual capacity by comparison.

^^^ Not bothered at all ^^^

Nothing to say about being caught in more lies though.

[SandyCromarty]

47 minutes ago, Jedi2 said:

You mean like when Shell (profit £22 billion) BP (profit £14 billion) and others, fled the UK when Jeremy Hunt slapped a 35% Windfall Tax (an increase of 10% from the previous year),on their profits in January 2023..think they are still here.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60295177.amp

Or the whole 5% of kids who go to Private Schools will mostly be leaving? Don't think so. Rather think that they will be more than able to afford an 'increase'. After all, fees of between £20-30K a year already aren't an issue.

Meanwhile it's fine and dandy to slap tax hikes on 'high' earners (by the SNP's definition) on £28,000 a year, but not oil and gas companies, private schools, or property developers.

It's interesting that you mention 'disappearing' for 'ten years or so', a decade in other words, that the SNP plan to use to 'disappear' even moderate functioning of public services in Scotland for.....but its all worth it in the 'long term'. How long it would take to rebuild those public services is anyone's guess.

 

BP and Shells UK income amounts to 10% and 5% respectively against their global income, this is a massive reduction to where it was some years back, so the move to a less taxing locations would not have a serious impact on their operations.

Then you have smaller outfits such as Neptune and Apache who have substantial overseas investment but not in the same ball park as the majors, squeezing the likes of hem would see an exodus.

The pupil figure for UK privately educated pupils is 4% but in Edinburgh that figure is over 25%, even a 5% move by pupils there would see a massive financial cost to Lothian Councils.

Yes the SNP tax 'high earners' in Scotland and rightly so but it is not outrageous and like the rest of us they can access legal tax breaks, there has been no major hue and cry from those high earners nor a massive exodus to england.

The SNP are sympathetic towards North Sea investment and it would be political suicide to be otherwise as the opposite regard would result in thousand of job losses as will happen under Labour, if you live in the central built you will be totally unaware of the scale of the industry and bear in mind that the UK access to North Sea oil provides big big kudos to British Governments when dealing with other Major European non oil producing nations, to have oil on our doorstep has kept this countrys economy afloat for decades and the Labour party knows that and believe all the bullshit they are spouting about no more exploration licences being issued will soon be out the window when they gat in.

Finally as much as I see the need for trade unions and have a great regard for what they do they are the Labour Party's paymasters and they will call in the loans.

Been there.

[HibeeJibee]

1 hour ago, SandyCromarty said:

VAT on school fees would see a massive pupil exodus from private to state schools and the increased cost to us the taxpayer.

 

1 hour ago, Jedi2 said:

Or the whole 5% of kids who go to Private Schools will mostly be leaving? Don't think so. Rather think that they will be more than able to afford an 'increase'. After all, fees of between £20-30K a year already aren't an issue.

Will Labour's VAT policy trigger an influx of pupils to Scotland's under-pressure state schools? (scotsman.com)

A key concern raised about Labour’s plans to end the VAT exemption on private school fees has been that it will add to pressure on state schools. This is mainly because it is claimed many parents will decide to enrol their children in local authority-run primaries and secondaries due to rising costs. Private schools estimate this could be the case for 6,000 pupils north of the border - a 20 per cent fall. However, the Institute of Fiscal Studies believes the decline is likely to be of between only 3 per cent and 7 per cent, or 900 to 2,100 pupils in Scotland.

In theory, a significant increase in the pupil roll would only add to the existing strain in state schools, where staff are already struggling to cope with a staggering rise in the number of pupils with additional support needs, as well deteriorating behaviour. However, roll projections show primary pupil numbers in state schools peaked in 2017 at over 400,300 and are now falling by 1.7 per cent a year, while in secondary schools they will peak next year at 316,600 and then decline by 1.2 per cent annually.

There should, therefore, be capacity in the state system, although existing pressures would not be eased by an influx. Any impact would also vary by area. It is often claimed a quarter of school pupils in Edinburgh attend private schools and, while this is not accurate, the capital does have a significant proportion. Close to 54,000 pupils attended state schools in Edinburgh last year, while 9,310 pupils living in Edinburgh are estimated to attend private schools. However the next highest was Glasgow, where only 3,170 private school pupils are thought to live, followed by Aberdeen with 2,530 and Perth & Kinross with 2,240. Edinburgh, Glasgow and Perth & Kinross councils all confirmed to The Scotsman they have not yet seen any evidence of a rise in enrolments.

[Jedi2]

The average wage in Scotland is around £35,000.

Under the SNP's 6 bands these 'high earners' start at £26,562 (or around £8000 below an 'average' wage. Of course there is then the fiscal drag between £43662 and £43,663 which takes a lot of public sector workers (nurses, teachers, police, Social Workers etc) into the 'Higher' band...these are the people the Scottish govt are going after to up their tax revenue (worth around £1 billion more in the next year with the rates higher than rUK

So for all the 'we settled teachers/nurses/police etc pay disputes (eventually)..award these workers a rise then hit them with Higher tax, which kind of defeats the purpose of the pay rise and makes it smoke and mirrors.

On the Windfall Tax, the proposal is to increase it by around 3% at present (less of an increase than the Tories made in the last 2 years).

Ultimately I would still rather see oil and gas giants, Private School parents and property developers paying a bit more in tax, than an average public sector worker, as, in most considerations they are most able to afford it.

		20%
Intermediate	£26,562 - £43,662	21%
Higher	£43,663 - £75,000	42%
Advanced	£75,001 - £125,140*	45%
Top	Above £125,141

[Jedi2]

12 minutes ago, HibeeJibee said:

 

Will Labour's VAT policy trigger an influx of pupils to Scotland's under-pressure state schools? (scotsman.com)

A key concern raised about Labour’s plans to end the VAT exemption on private school fees has been that it will add to pressure on state schools. This is mainly because it is claimed many parents will decide to enrol their children in local authority-run primaries and secondaries due to rising costs. Private schools estimate this could be the case for 6,000 pupils north of the border - a 20 per cent fall. However, the Institute of Fiscal Studies believes the decline is likely to be of between only 3 per cent and 7 per cent, or 900 to 2,100 pupils in Scotland.

In theory, a significant increase in the pupil roll would only add to the existing strain in state schools, where staff are already struggling to cope with a staggering rise in the number of pupils with additional support needs, as well deteriorating behaviour. However, roll projections show primary pupil numbers in state schools peaked in 2017 at over 400,300 and are now falling by 1.7 per cent a year, while in secondary schools they will peak next year at 316,600 and then decline by 1.2 per cent annually.

There should, therefore, be capacity in the state system, although existing pressures would not be eased by an influx. Any impact would also vary by area. It is often claimed a quarter of school pupils in Edinburgh attend private schools and, while this is not accurate, the capital does have a significant proportion. Close to 54,000 pupils attended state schools in Edinburgh last year, while 9,310 pupils living in Edinburgh are estimated to attend private schools. However the next highest was Glasgow, where only 3,170 private school pupils are thought to live, followed by Aberdeen with 2,530 and Perth & Kinross with 2,240. Edinburgh, Glasgow and Perth & Kinross councils all confirmed to The Scotsman they have not yet seen any evidence of a rise in enrolments.

So the conclusions leads to:

Taxing Private School parents more

Taxing Oil and Gas Giants more

Taxing Property Developers more

Trying to claw back non-dom.tax avoidance.....

All 'unfair' and 'unmanageable'

But....Taxing people earning £8000 less than an average wage and going after teachers, nurses, police and Social Workers with tax hikes is 'progressive' and where we should be clawing the money in from?

Certainly removes any doubt about the clear right-left wing gap in economic approach between Labour and the SNP.

If you want to protect private schools, large multinationals, large landowners, and bankers, the SNP is clearly on your side.

 

Edited July 2 by Jedi2

[Granny Danger]

18 minutes ago, Jedi2 said:

The average wage in Scotland is around £35,000.

Under the SNP's 6 bands these 'high earners' start at £26,562 (or around £8000 below an 'average' wage. Of course there is then the fiscal drag between £43662 and £43,663 which takes a lot of public sector workers (nurses, teachers, police, Social Workers etc) into the 'Higher' band...these are the people the Scottish govt are going after to up their tax revenue (worth around £1 billion more in the next year with the rates higher than rUK

So for all the 'we settled teachers/nurses/police etc pay disputes (eventually)..award these workers a rise then hit them with Higher tax, which kind of defeats the purpose of the pay rise and makes it smoke and mirrors.

On the Windfall Tax, the proposal is to increase it by around 3% at present (less of an increase than the Tories made in the last 2 years).

Ultimately I would still rather see oil and gas giants, Private School parents and property developers paying a bit more in tax, than an average public sector worker, as, in most considerations they are most able to afford it.

		20%
Intermediate	£26,562 - £43,662	21%
Higher	£43,663 - £75,000	42%
Advanced	£75,001 - £125,140*	45%
Top	Above £125,141

Is that the mean or median average?

[Jedi2]

10 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

Is that the mean or median average?

Mean £35K

Median £28K

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

You know how people like Jedi are absolutely off putting to people and would put you off voting labour? You know that kind of behaviour seeps right through the labour party? Is it just me thats worried their complacency might actually lead to some kind of reform uk led government? We’re laughing it off like we did brexit, but there are enough crayon munchers in the English balance of power constituencies and enough sanctimonious labour cretins to make it an outside chance…?  

[Granny Danger]

4 minutes ago, Jedi2 said:

Mean £35K

Median £28K

And you realise within the context of the issue you’re discussing that the median figure is of far greater relevance than the mean figure?

[Sherrif John Bunnell]

1 hour ago, ICTChris said:

Reform candidate in Orkney and Shetland got his finger on the pulse of local issues.

My mum and dad were in Shetland a few weeks back, will check with them if there are “transexuals everywhere”.

The Uppies and Doonies must be stopped from taking the knee during the annual game of Ba'