Anything Political

[DJ360 6,721]

15 minutes ago, Brew said:

You're not too sure about the benefits of independent schools being of benefit to society and therefore not qualified for charity status, but expect HMG to turn a blind eye to (several), recognised charities financing political organisations...

 

I am very sure that Independent Schools cannot properly be seen as charities and I've been at pains to explain why.

 

Political donations, clearly a grey area. Any UK charity, is permitted to campaign “for a change in the law, policy or decisions where such change would support the charity’s aims”, where such a campaign “must not be the continuing and sole activity of the charity”.

[Brew 5,408]

29 minutes ago, DJ360 said:

Apart from a few 'officers', you can say virtually nothing about who are members, donors etc., of the IEA, and they do not admit to their lobbying activities, despite having been caught in the act.

 

 

There  go Col, dip yer bread... 

We publish our trustees reports and audited financial statements on the Charity Commission website and they are also available via Companies House. Our latest accounts show an income in 2022/23 of a little over £2.3 million.

[Brew 5,408]

4 minutes ago, DJ360 said:

Political donations, clearly a grey area. Any UK charity, is permitted to campaign “for a change in the law, policy or decisions where such change would support the charity’s aims”, where such a campaign “must not be the continuing and sole activity of the charity”.

but the RSPB started years ago... and how many popping money in the rattle tin know where the money goes?

and you'd be quite happy for Eton to donate to the Tory party 

 

 

[DJ360 6,721]

10 minutes ago, Brew said:

And your missing my point they all use the ambiguous corporate speak. High level language that doesn't actually say anything, Corbyn was a master. 

--

 

IEA is CLEARLY right wing by its very nature, but it won't admit it.

The  left wing orgs you quote are open about their politics AND funding.

I refuse to accept that you cannot see the difference.

 

12 minutes ago, Brew said:

A mission statement (a bit out of fashion now days) is just that, you can't say it's called a mission  but it isn't really, if they say it is then that's exactly what it is and arguing semantics won't change it.

 

A mission has overtones of righteousness. As opposed to an 'objective', which has no such associations and iI think more properly reflects the objectives of the IEA.

 

14 minutes ago, Brew said:

Tax deductible members fees are an attraction to all parties and gives the recipient not only the fee but also a tax rebate, nothing untoward there

 

Where did I say there was?  You raised members fees, not I.

[DJ360 6,721]

11 minutes ago, Brew said:

There  go Col, dip yer bread... 

We publish our trustees reports and audited financial statements on the Charity Commission website and they are also available via Companies House. Our latest accounts show an income in 2022/23 of a little over £2.3 million.

 

Yes, no wonder you 'wink', because as I keep saying there is no, zero, nada, zilch info on who donates. I rest my case.

[Brew 5,408]

1 minute ago, DJ360 said:

A mission has overtones of righteousness. As opposed to an 'objective', which has no such associations and iI think more properly reflects the objectives of the IEA.

I always thought them pretentious  but a mission statement was virtually de rigueur in the 90's for every company bigger than a hotdog stand. The fact you don't like the way they use the word is largely irrelevant and doesn't make it less of a mission.

 

7 minutes ago, DJ360 said:

Where did I say there was?  You raised members fees, not I

No you did by referring to members paying with their expenses. Some thing all MPs can do and claim it as tax  deductible.

[Brew 5,408]

5 minutes ago, DJ360 said:

Yes, no wonder you 'wink', because as I keep saying there is no, zero, nada, zilch info on who donates. I rest my case.

 

Ah right... you have a down on who contributes:

 

Quote:

 

Our policy is to leave it to our funders to decide whether to disclose their support. Many do choose to do so, which we welcome. For example, Jersey Finance contributed towards our programme on offshore financial centres (publicised here), and historically our work on the NHS has been funded by the John Templeton Foundation (publicised here).

Much of our funding from businesses also takes the form of sponsorship of events or competitions, and payments for attending conferences – activities, open to the public, that are visibly transparent for that reason.

The IEA programme at the 2021 Conservative Party Conference included events sponsored by RSSB and Pernod Ricard.

 

 

We respect the privacy rights of donors to donate to charity without being publicly identified. Reasons for privacy rest with donors but include modesty, personal security, or a desire to avoid being aggressively targeted for donations by other organisations.

In a free society people should be free to associate with whomever they like and back any cause, without fear or favour. This has been widely recognised as a bedrock of democracy, both in the UK, the EU, and elsewhere

 

But I don't expect you believe  word of of it. your long standing misunderstanding and dislike of the organisation will prevent you doing so...

[DJ360 6,721]

14 hours ago, Brew said:

No you did by referring to members paying with their expenses. Some thing all MPs can do and claim it as tax  deductible.

 

No. I was specifically referring to the scandal of Tory MPs misusing their legitimate expenses to fund the European Research Group in contravention of IPSA rules and the ministerial code.

Here it is again.

 

21 hours ago, DJ360 said:

The IEA, is even more dishonestly named than the 'European Research Group' (ERG), which is not only emphatically NOT a 'research Group', but a faction within the Tory Party, which has been shown to have furthered its cause by the misappropriation MPs expenses.

 

https://leftfootforward.org/2021/08/here-are-the-tory-mps-who-are-paying-tax-payer-cash-to-the-european-research-group/

 

14 hours ago, Brew said:

But I don't expect you believe  word of of it. your long standing misunderstanding and dislike of the organisation will prevent you doing so...

 

I do not misunderstand the IEA. They are a clearly right wing NeoCon Free Market Campaigning AND Lobbying group. As such, even if their activities were entirely legal I would oppose them.  As it is, they are widely known and accepted to be active lobbyists and have been caught in the act of ILLEGALLY trying to arrange 'cash for access' as well as publishing climate change denials. I said at the outset that they show their cards in their opening paragraph then use most of the rest of their website to deny their real objectives. 

As ever, Shakespeare has a useful quote: 'The lady doth protest too much, methinks.'

And that is exactly what the IEA does. I don't misunderstand them..I understand them all too well.

 

A rather less Shakespearean quote:  'If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck..'

 

Did you not read the Wiki entry on the IEA which I posted earlier? Especially this bit?

 

Quote

The IEA subscribes to a neoliberal world view and advocates positions based on this ideology.^[14] It published climate change denial material between 1994 and 2007,^[15] and has advocated for privatisation of elements of, and abolition of complete government control of, the National Health Service (NHS), in favour of a healthcare system with market mechanisms.^[16][4] It has received more than £70,000 from the tobacco industry^[17][18] (although it does not reveal its funders),^[19][20] and IEA officers have been recorded offering "cash for access". The IEA is headquartered in Westminster, London, England.^[21][15]

 

To use another well worn phrase..  'Would you buy a used car from ..?'

 

[DJ360 6,721]

15 hours ago, Brew said:

and you'd be quite happy for Eton to donate to the Tory party 

 

Stretching things a bit there Jim.  I wouldn't, because I don't accept that they should have Charitable status in the first place.

 

And while we're on the subject.. The whole issue of 'Charitable Status'..who gets it and what they can properly do with funds, is clearly a mess, riven with 'grey' areas etc.  This not helped since the Charity Commission has been changed under this Govt. I need to do more research, but on first glance, it's another case of 'Walking and Quacking like a Duck', pointing to deliberate deregulation..  Quel surprise!

[philmayfield 6,115]

To my knowledge the Nottingham High Schools do a lot of charitable work to assist the communities  of the area.

[Brew 5,408]

1 hour ago, DJ360 said:

Stretching things a bit there Jim. 

 

True, but the principle remains the same. RSPB, SCOPE, Woodland Trust +++ and ETON are all 'charities'.  Only ETON do not make political donations but by the rules it would be OK if they did.

 

Lobbying to further their aims is one thing. (though lobbying a 'think tank' seems somewhat dubious), but donating money given by those who are unaware of the fact is to my mind not lobbying at all. even union subscriptions have an opt out.

But this is going nowhere..... I was simply surprised at the amount the Fabians accept from charities.

 

Although

1 hour ago, DJ360 said:

This not helped since the Charity Commission has been changed under this Govt.

 

Looking at the list of changes I see nothing untoward...

[Oztalgian 3,270]

I'd be interested in hearing what those posting in "Anything Political" think of the recently handed down budget.

[philmayfield 6,115]

There’s nothing in it for the oldies although we’ll be getting a pension increase in April. It might be enough to cover the forthcoming increase in council tax. A budget lacking in no rabbits and no hats! Worry not though, Sir Starkers will soon be ensconced in No.10 to bring joy and prosperity into our lives. I just can’t wait! 

[Beekay 5,134]

I recently had a letter from Works and Pensions advising me that, now I am 80 years old, I will receive an age increase of...wait for it....0.25pence.

Think it's time to put down a deposit for a Porche.

[philmayfield 6,115]

More of an insult than an increase!

[Jill Sparrow 10,304]

2 hours ago, philmayfield said:

Sir Starkers will soon be ensconced in No.10 to bring joy and prosperity into our lives. I just can’t wait! 

Why does he always look as though he's about to burst into tears?

[Brew 5,408]

 

Hunt made a surprisingly good speech with some good points, some obscure reasoning, some humour (even Starmer laughed), some barbs against Raynor taking advantage of Thatchers right to buy, and a decent smoke screen.

It was  fairly complex and may yet prove to be a poison chalice for Labour.

His aspirations and predictions for what the budget will achieve are a wish list and highly unlikely to come to fruition; but we can say that about every budget.

He may also be paying it forward to give the Tories in opposition ammunition when Labour have to cancel or rescind all or part of it.

 

Why would someone on £80,000 need child benefit? maybe hoping to buy votes from the middle classes? won't work though, it doesn't even cover the school fees. .

Or is it a clever ruse to push them into a higher tax bracket?

 

The SNP calling for a  highly unusual division, gave Starmer the breathing space to marshal his thoughts and his speech.

After a hesitant start it was actually better than his usual performance but to expect a detailed response in such a short time is unreasonable. His  response, once got going, it made clear his researchers had a long list of points to make, they just needed a little time to get them in the right order.

He was quite determined to attack the Tories record but said little about the budget itself.

[DJ360 6,721]

Hunt has a knack of seeming competent and reasonable. He has a calm and unflappable style and, whilst he is certainly way more competent than the likes of Gove, Gavin Williamson etc.., I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him.

 

He's one of a very small number of politicians, mostly, but not exclusively of 'the right', who give me the 'creeps', simply by being who they are, irrespective of what they say.  These are the ones who really put my 'Insincerity Detector' into the Red. He's not quite up there with Thatcher, Trump, Johnson, Schapps and Co... but he's not far behind.

Some of his actions and obfuscations when Health Secretary were far from impressive. His behaviour as Chancellor is the same.

 

As to the budget?  I didn't actually see it, but I did watch several analyses later.  One stuck with me. I think it was BBC Newsnight and they did a 'losers and winners' comparison. I've just spent half an hour trying to find the actual segment on the iPlayer, but without success.  As I recall, it showed a graphic of three different income levels and the effects of the tax changes. Top level of, I think £60k or £80k, was around £900 better off, somewhere in the middle, around £40k, were £600 better off and the lowest level of around £20k, was £150 WORSE OFF. I may not have those figures totally correct from memory, but they won't be far off and for me they say it all...

 

As the old saying goes.. 'Tories gonna Tory' and with the notable exception of the abolition of 'Non Dom' status, Hunt's budget has done nothing to restrain the wealthiest or narrow the increasing 'Wealth Gap' and has made the poorest worse off. Add in the scheduled cuts in spending on Public Services, which inevitably affects the poorest the most, and we have what amounts to a simple continuation of  the Tory Govt's NeoCon obsession with cutting taxes AND public spending, with the accompanying 'Jam Tomorrow' lie, which always comes true for the better off, but never results in the supposed inclusive 'Low Tax, High Pay' economy.  Let this sink in... It never will.

 

The general consensus from 'Mainstream' Economists is that neither the Tories, nor a future Labour Govt. (will) have much room for manouvre on Public Spending.  I'm increasingly sceptical of 'Mainstream' economics, but even if I wasn't, I'd still be arguing that it isn't the SIZE of the pot which needs to change.. it's the DISTRIBUTION of the pot. That is absolutely achievable, whatever the economy is doing, because it is a political, rather than an economic choice.

 

Overall, a bit of a 'non' Budget, and with a number of things kicked down the road for (presumably) Labour to pick up.

 

Frankly, I'm disappointed that Labour haven't seriously opposed the Budget, especially its effects on the lowest income groups and public saervices, but then I'm hoping that Starmer and Co have calculated that whatever happens, they'll be in power soon and don't need to stick their economic necks out right now.

 

And of course the coming election result isn't just dependent upon this Budget.  I'm surely not the only one asking what the next Govt. intends to do to bring to heel the Profiteering and inefficient Privatised Utilities, Transport, etc... industries which are ripping us all off. Also, when will we get some transparency on the future of the NHS, some action on Adult Social Care, Local Govt. Funding, Education, Training, Employment and Recruitment..and yes.. Immigration, Legal or otherwise.

 

[DJ360 6,721]

On 3/6/2024 at 10:37 AM, philmayfield said:

To my knowledge the Nottingham High Schools do a lot of charitable work to assist the communities  of the area.

 

I'm sure they do Phil, but I don't think that has much, if anything to do with them having 'Charitable Status', which it seems to me is more about reducing their Tax bill.

Also worth noting that practically every state school actively facilitates and encourages staff and pupil support for charity, especially Comic Relief/Red Nose Day, Children in Need etc., as well as stuff around Remembrance. All without the benefit of Charitable Status, and in the face of real terms cuts in funding.

[DJ360 6,721]

Ooops.  Forgot to mention National Insurance.

Maybe worth remembering that NI was introduced in 1911 to fund State Pensions and expanded considerably post WW2 to fund 'The Welfare State', including Unemployment Benefit, 'Social Security' and Pensions.

 

In recent years the link between individual contributions, and State Benefits, including State Pensions, (which Govt. insists on describing as 'Benefits', despite their contributory nature) has been made increasingly tenuous.

BUT. ..

Also, we have the whole issue of employers whinging that NI is a 'Tax on Jobs'. A dubious argument at best, but no doubt the major motivator for Tories to reduce it.

 

Thing is.. what happens if and/or when the Tories achieve their objective of abolishing NI altogether?

As I see it that would be the final nail in the coffin of the Welfare State, because ALL connection between contributions and benefits would be lost, leaving the way open for the NeoCon Tories' ultimate objective.. the destruction of the Welfare State and those Public Services which exist as a part of it, and its replacement with some sort of Private Sector system, which would, without doubt, result in poorer public services, fewer 'Benefits' and massive profits for the Private Sector...again...

[Brew 5,408]

2 hours ago, DJ360 said:

Top level of, I think £60k or £80k, was around £900 better off, somewhere in the middle, around £40k, were £600 better off and the lowest level of around £20k, was £150 WORSE OFF. I may not have those figures totally correct from memory, but they won't be far off and for me they say it all...

 

There is an anomaly with child benefit. A single earner over the £80k gets nothing, A joint income totalling £120k keeps it all.

I said he raised a smokescreen and it's the fact overall the tax take will actually be higher as a percentage of GDP than it has been for at least 50yrs and the average earner is worse off. The 1% growth hunt quoted is accurate, BUT, it's smoke and mirrors. The rise is due to an increase in population not an increase per person.

 

There are quite a few differences in the various analyses depending their particular political stance but overall they agree pensioners are going tb be worse off.

 

Regardless of who wins the next election there will have to be eye watering cuts in public spending if national debt is to be reduced. The present level of debt is almost the same as the GDP and interest alone is staggering high.

 

Labour are doing their usual fence siting which irritates me no end. Col's view that Starmer is keeping his cards close to his chest just won't wash.

[Brew 5,408]

1 hour ago, DJ360 said:

Also, we have the whole issue of employers whinging that NI is a 'Tax on Jobs'. A dubious argument at best, but no doubt the major motivator for Tories to reduce it.

 

The cuts are for employees not employers.

 

Another thought, the planned cuts will be unpopular to say the least, but they are sneakily planned to be announced after the election. 

[DJ360 6,721]

Well at least we agree that the budget is a con.

As for Starmer,I'm as much in the dark as you and was simply speculating.

 

The debt as %ge of GDP is not automatically a big deal. USA currently has around 110% and Japan around 150% with recent highs of  around 250%. Remember the debt exists over time whereas GDP is an annual assessment, so the debt: GDP ratio is just an indicator. Here's a domestic example. My first mortgage was for a sum roughly 4 times my annual income, repayable over 25 years. It only became a problem when interest rates skyrocketed in the 70s and decent work became harder to find.

Of course it takes on more significance when GDP is low, and interest rates are high. GDP is low under the Tories because they are more interested in asset stripping the economy than actively promoting growth. Interest rates are way higher than they need to be because of Truss' idiocy.

None of that was inevitable.

[DJ360 6,721]

3 hours ago, Brew said:

but overall they agree pensioners are going tb be worse off.

 

 Well of course the Tories daren't alienate their 'natural' constituency by fiddling with the Triple Lock, so they had to find another way.. 

[Brew 5,408]

2 hours ago, DJ360 said:

The debt as %ge of GDP is not automatically a big deal.

I was presenting it as an example of the smokescreen and how to present a negative as a positive. As a key performance indicator it has it's uses to economists but little relevance to ordinary folk unless someone is trying to sell you a cat in a sack