Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

That radical new Balls policy: increase taxes. Don’t say the bosses of some of the largest employers in Britain didn’t warn you:

Rob Templeman, chairman of the British Retail Consortium, Gala Coral and the RAC: “this tax increase would be bad for business in Britain. It would put the recovery at risk, deter investment and ultimately cost jobs”

Sir Stuart Rose, former executive chairman of Marks and Spencer: “This will put at risk all the good work that has been done to put the economy back on track.”

Mike Lynch, co-founder of Autonomy Corporation and former Labour donor: “The proposed tax increase would put jobs and the economic recovery at risk and discourage investment into the UK.”

Ian Cheshire, chief executive of Kingfisher: ”Putting up the percentage rate is the wrong answer. When the rate was cut the total tax paid went up and the top 0.1% now pay over 30% of all income tax. Raising the rate is bad economics and sends an anti business message that may undermine investment plans and the recovery”

Dracula will be a vegetarian before Ed Balls balances a budget.

Call Me Dave is hugely relieved.......until the election.



The great EU farce plays out in Westminster

How the machiavellian workings of certain politicians are stopping debate on Britain’s future in Europe





By Iain Martin

9:38PM GMT 25 Jan 2014

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/10596705/The-great-EU-farce-plays-out-in-Westminster.html



"The Bill is sunk,” said a peer emerging from the House of Lords late on Friday afternoon. Although members of the upper chamber seated on the red benches were still discussing the piece of prospective legislation that aims to enshrine the promise of a referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union, it had, as a veteran of Margaret Thatcher’s cabinets acknowledged, been holed below the water line.


For months, Tory MPs – backed by the Prime Minister – have been attempting to push through a Bill providing for an in-out vote on the EU by 2017. It was passed by the Commons and moved to the Lords for consideration. What followed last week were many hours of debate, with opponents of a referendum using blocking tactics in the Lords to get their way. There were long speeches aimed at talking the Bill out. At one point Lord Foulkes, the Labour peer, even spoke in Doric, the dialect that emanates from the north east of Scotland, to illustrate a point.


On Friday, eventually two amendments were passed, one recasting the terms of the question that would be posed in a referendum and the other stipulating that the Government conduct an “impact assessment” of the cost of leaving the EU. These changes effectively killed the Bill. It is, as the Eurosceptic Tory MP Bill Cash put it in a reference drawn from Monty Python, “a dead parrot”.


Due to parliamentary procedure, the amended Bill will now have to go back to the Commons for further consideration (after the Lords are expected to discuss it again on Friday).


However, it has very little chance of being discussed again in the Commons. Because it originated as a Private Members Bill – a Bill that is introduced by an individual member rather than the government of the day – it will go to the back of the queue, and may have to be picked up by another MP who will make a fresh attempt. It may not get more time later this year or it might, when the whole parliamentary merry-go-round can begin again.


Confused? It is extraordinary how difficult it is proving to arrange for British voters to get a simple referendum on whether or not the UK should stay in the EU. To those demanding such a vote perhaps it sounds as though it should be a relatively straightforward business. But at Westminster nothing is ever quite that easy.

At the root of the difficulties the Tories are having in attempting to secure a vote after the next election, and before the deadline of 2017 suggested by the Prime Minister, is the reality that Mr Cameron simply does not have an overall majority in the Commons. If he had, he could have made the introduction of a referendum Bill government business. In the Coalition, however, the Europhile Lib Dems would not allow it.

Instead, with his Eurosceptic backbenchers and Ukip on his tail, David Cameron had to look for another way in which to get a referendum on to the statute book. Last year, Tory backbencher James Wharton drafted a Bill and a Conservative-backed campaign – Let Britain Decide – was established to make the case outside Parliament.

Tory Eurosceptics hoped that mandating a future referendum by law would help counter the threat from Nigel Farage and Ukip before this spring’s European elections and next year’s general election, by showing that the Tories are committed to giving voters a chance to decide, at last, on the European question.

They also wanted to put pressure on Labour in the expectation that Ed Miliband would before the general election concede the offer of a referendum in the next parliament.

Mr Miliband has refused to say either way, and most of the Labour high command is desperate to avoid a commitment. If Labour wins the election, the pro-EU Mr Miliband does not want to spend the first two years preoccupied with an EU referendum which he could easily lose.

There always was a problem with the latest cunning Tory plan, however. Traditionally, one parliament cannot bind its successor, meaning that it cannot pass legislation that forces the next parliament, after the next election, to take a particular course of action. This is what critics of the Wharton Bill claimed was being attempted.

It meant that last week’s opposition to the Bill in the Lords came not just from Labour and Lib Dem MPs and peers. In the Lords many crossbenchers – the term for those not affiliated to a party – were agitated. Lord Armstrong, former Cabinet Secretary, the country’s most senior civil servant, was worried that the question in the Bill was badly framed and could lead to confusion on the part of voters. Other cross-bench peers raised similar concerns.

The result in the Lords on Friday, said a Tory peer who supported the Bill out of loyalty but had reservations about its provisions, was “a slaughter” as a succession of former senior civil servants and Labour grandees rose to pick it apart. Labour and Lib Dem peers had also been encouraged to turn out in heavy numbers to vote for the wrecking amendments.

The end result was humiliation for the Tory side. Said a Conservative peer: “It was as though someone had tried to drive a Mini into the path of a tank. At the end, all that is left of the Bill is a pile of mangled wreckage.”

Lord Kerr, a crossbencher who served as the UK’s ambassador to the EU and then to the US, compared the doomed efforts of Tory peers to the Charge of the Light Brigade.

The contributions to the debate by former mandarins served as another indication that the traditionally pro-EU British Establishment is mounting an increasingly determined effort to kill off the prospect of a referendum. There is also considerable pressure coming from outside Parliament.

At Davos – the annual event held in a Swiss ski-resort where the global business and political elite meet to discuss the economic situation – Sir Martin Sorrell, the advertising mogul, urged the Prime Minister to drop his commitment to an EU referendum.

Sir Martin, chief executive of WPP Group, said that although Ed Miliband had presented himself as anti-big business, he was encouraged that the Labour leader is at least opposed to a public vote on the EU. Describing a conversation with Mr Cameron about the general election, he said: “We told the PM, if he were to drop the referendum he would be a shoo-in.”

Mr Cameron rejected Sir Martin’s advice at Davos and said that he is committed to giving British voters a referendum on EU membership. But the Tory leader also faced criticism last week from the British Bankers Association, which said that the Government should dedicate more resources to representing British interests in Brussels. The UK should be closer to the EU, it said.

It was also reported that civil servants in the Treasury are readying themselves to warn of the economic risks of the UK leaving the EU if a referendum is called at any point. Sir Nicholas Macpherson, the Treasury’s Permanent Secretary, gave a speech recently in which he advocated the advantages of the EU single market.

If Labour does win the next election, or governs in coalition with the Lib Dems, it is all shaping up for the denial of an in-out referendum. Labour in particular hopes that the apparent passing of the Eurozone crisis and economic recovery in the UK will mean that public interest in a referendum fades. In this way, it could be quietly buried. Ukip and the Tories in opposition could complain loudly, but there is not much they could do in the next parliament if it is Labour-dominated.

James Wharton MP, the Tory MP behind the referendum Bill, acknowledged yesterday that it is in trouble although valiantly he pledged to fight on: “It’s not dead yet, but the process of killing it may have begun.”

He admits that without a Government commitment to find time for his Bill in the Commons – a commitment that Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg is likely to block – the Bill is indeed dead as a parrot. Mr Wharton said that if voters want to have their say on the EU then they should vote Conservative at the election.

Voters could be forgiven for thinking that, yet again, Westminster game-playing and Establishment machinations are combining to make an EU referendum less likely than ever.

i think the one thing that would really scuttle labour is if - it's actually a case of when - the average joe starts to feel better off

==========

just to revert to benefits and part-time working for a sec .....

no one has thought to mention that if a claimant works more than 16 hours a week, then their benefits get eaten away, so the incentive to work longer is often (can be) minimal to zero
it doesn't much matter where you set that bar, there will always be a point where that is so

This comment sums it up!


p60
• 3 hours ago


CamEUron must be hugely relieved. Still it would be a fair bet he already knew the outcome.

UKIP now has no reason to save any Tory marginal seats.

Cameron for his own survival was trying to appease the fascist right of his own party and burst Fauxpage's balloon.

Haze,

P 35898


the europhobics R/W torids have increasing problems.

Sir Martin, chief executive of WPP Group, said that although Ed Miliband had presented himself as anti-big business, he was encouraged that the Labour leader is at least opposed to a public vote on the EU. Describing a conversation with Mr Cameron about the general election, he said: “We told the PM, if he were to drop the referendum he would be a shoo-in.”

Mr Cameron rejected Sir Martin’s advice at Davos and said that he is committed to giving British voters a referendum on EU membership. But the Tory leader also faced criticism last week from the British Bankers Association, which said that the Government should dedicate more resources to representing British interests in Brussels. The UK should be closer to the EU, it said.

It was also reported that civil servants in the Treasury are readying themselves to warn of the economic risks of the UK leaving the EU if a referendum is called at any point. Sir Nicholas Macpherson, the Treasury’s Permanent Secretary, gave a speech recently in which he advocated the advantages of the EU single market.

The prospect of an EU referendum is very important for the Conservatives because it nullifies the appeal of UKIP and highlights its difference with Labour. The public want a vote on the EU and Labour and the Libs are against it. UKIP won't be able to give a vote. They are not a party, just a pressure group. The conservative are the only party that can give a referendum.

Haze.

Some of the public not all.

=======


Possibly, after the 2015 election the Nasty party will be the size of a pressure group.


If, Cameron was still party leader of the fractious tribe called the tories and a referendum on Europe occurs within the next 5years Cameron will be pleading to stay in the Union.

He doesn’t want one for the sake of his own skin and for party political reasons, but
appears too cowardly to stand up for what he believes in.

I can still hear the chants over the last 10years that the Union would break up, never survive and waste of time from the little Englanders. Yet it appears stronger than ever and quite prepared to nod good bye to the UK, if it is stupid enough to threaten it rather than negotiate.

Going to negotiations with a club in your hand is now longer acceptable in the EU and relates back to the obsolete methods of the days of the Raj and the period which many of the tories are stuck in.

Even Macmillan moved on.

But you may find comfort in quote of his; “I read a great number of press reports and find comfort in the fact that they are nearly always conflicting”.

The majority of the public want a referendum. Cameron does want to stay in. He wants to use the referendum as a lever to get a better relationship with the EU. Our relationship with the EU was changed due to Labour giving up our veto on legislation.

Like a little boy who has found a pea shooter and goes to war against a tank.

Get real.

Romanians offered Prime Minister's paid apprenticeships

A £1.5 billion government scheme to get young Britons back into work is being advertised to Romanians considering coming to Britain



By Georgia Graham, Political Correspondent

2:40PM GMT 26 Jan 2014

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10597834/Romanians-offered-Prime-Ministers-paid-apprenticeships.html



Romanians coming to Britain without a job are being offered apprenticeships under a government scheme designed to get unemployed young Britons into a job.


Agencies in Romania are targeting would be migrants wishing to take advantage of recent lifting of the immigration controls and advertising the apprenticeships which pay up to £1000 and on the job training.


One Romanian job agency is offering apprenticeships, which are subsidised by the UK Government, at Gordon Ramsay’s restaurants and Chelsea football club.


According to The Sunday Times the Extern job agency in the Romanian town of Cluj is offering a range of apprenticeships paying between £650 and £1000 a month.


European freedom of movement laws mean the UK is powerless to stop EU migrants taking up coveted apprenticeship spots ahead of British people who are also looking for work.


The Extern agency claimed it was in the process of placing 50 Romanians on the 1.5 billion apprenticeship scheme which was described by David Cameron on it’s launch as a key part of the Government’s plan to “deal with the scourge of youth unemployment.”

He added at the time that Britain must challenge European workers by making young people more willing and able to compete with migrants.

The government has admitted that it does not know how many non-British nationals have taken up taxpayer-funded apprenticeships because it does not record their nationality.

An advert placed by Extern on Tjobs, a Romanian employment website. says that accommodation will be provided for successful applicants for the apprenticeships adding that they will be picked up from Luton or Heathrow airports.

The advert emphasises how UK taxes will not be paid on earnings below £10,000 from this year, The Sunday Times reports.

i read that too, but
(a) the company concerned in romania was forced to withdraw the names of the companies with which it alleged it had links/offers - it had nothing of the sort
and
(b) as it stands, it would seem that in principle these apprenticeships cannot be refused to any eu citizen, always provided the company concerned agrees to accept them and that they fulfill certain other criteria

it would have been better if you had posted the full story - in synopsis would have been better still!!

That was the whole story as published in the torygraph, don't know about the ST.

that's the thing about newspapers (or politicians) telling the truth!

BREAKING….Ed Balls’s 2020 Vision

By John Ward January 25, 2014





More: http://hat4uk.wordpress.com/2014/01/25/breaking-ed-ballss-2020-vision/

From 2007

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/domestic_politics/the%2Beconomy%2Bis%2Bsafe%2Bin%2Bour%2Bhands/1207747.html

'The economy is safe in our hands'

By Gary Gibbon, Faisal Islam

Updated on 19 December 2007

Brown and Darling defend their handling of Northern Rock and the credit crunch.

Don't worry - the fundamentals of the British economy remain sound, Gordon Brown declared today, as he insisted the country would be able to 'weather' financial turbulence across the world.

The Prime Minister - flanked by the Chancellor throughout his regular monthly press conference - also defended his handling of the Northern Rock crisis, firmly pinning the blame for what had happened to the bank's Board and the financial services authority.

But there's an unpredictable economic outlook haunting Mr Brown this Christmas - as our political editor, Gary Gibbon, reports.

But from subprime housing markets to the credit crunch - concerns about economic stability are growing around the world. So can Britain really withstand the storm as readily as the Prime Minister and Chancellor claimed? Our economic correspondent Faisal Islam reports tonight.

From the GUARDIAN

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jan/18/observer-poll-osborne-cameron-economy

Economy 'safe in Cameron and Osborne's hands'

Blow for Labour as a new poll shows one in three now believe the Tory leadership is the best option for the country's fortunes

David Cameron and George Osborne are increasingly regarded by the public as the best team to handle the British economy, a new poll suggests.

One in three believe the Tory leadership provides the best option for the country as it emerges out its economic downturn. This compares to just 18% who believe Ed Miliband and his shadow chancellor Ed Balls would be the best custodians of the economy - down 3 points on polling carried out last summer.

Just 7% said the Nick Clegg and business secretary Vince Cable were the ones they would trust the most with the economy while 30% said they do not trust any of the leadership teams and the rest told pollsters they do not know.

The Opinium/Observer poll will come as a major blow to Labour who last week sought to flesh out their economic vision.

Miliband has promised he has the strength to tackle the vested interests in Britain and force the big five banks to sell branches to at least two new challenger banks.

His proposals put Lloyds and RBS in the line of fire, and his promise to break them up hit their share price on Friday, as the shadow business secretary Chuka Umunna had predicted might happen.

However it would appear that Miliband faces an uphill struggle to persuade the public that Labour can be trusted to look after the economy.

It would appear that even many of its own voters are not convinced that the two men at the top of the party are the best option for the country. Half (53%) said they would choose Miliband and Balls over the rest to handle the economy but that compared to 88% of Conservative voters who choose the prime minister and chancellor.

A quarter of Labour voters said they did not trust any of the mainstream parties in a finding that may give hope to Nigel Farage's Ukip, which often proves to be the choice of the voters disaffected with Miliband's party. Meanwhile Labour has dropped one percentage point over the last two weeks to 36% in the polls - just six points ahead of the Tories on 30%. The Liberal Democrats remain at 8%. Ukip is on 17%.

Senior business figures hit out at Labour's 50p tax rate plan

Heads of 24 of Britain’s most successful companies warn that Ed Miliband’s policy could threaten recovery and cost jobs





Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls

Ed Balls, the shadow chancellor, is facing criticism over his plan to raise the top rate of tax to 50p Photo: Getty Images



Watch exclusively live Barclays Premier League action on BT Sport. Liverpool v Everton, from 7pm on Tuesday and Tottenham v Manchester City, from 7pm Wednesday.

Advertisement







Matthew Holehouse
By Matthew Holehouse, Political Correspondent

9:12PM GMT 26 Jan 2014

Follow





Senior business figures have launched a strong and united attack on Labour’s pledge to raise the top rate of tax to 50p.


In the strongest criticism so far, the heads of 24 of Britain’s most successful companies warned in a letter to The Telegraph - copied below - that Ed Miliband’s policy would threaten the recovery and cost jobs.


Ed Balls, the shadow chancellor, has been severely criticised by rival politicians, industry figures and some members of his own party since announcing the policy. Mr Balls insisted that his party was “pro-business” but claimed it was needed to close the budget deficit, which is forecast to be £78 billion at the next election.


However, he admitted he could not say how much the change would raise.


The signatories of today’s letter include Sir Stuart Rose, the chairman of Ocado, Sir Ian Cheshire, the chief executive of the DIY giant Kingfisher, and Neil Clifford, the chief executive of the footwear retailer Kurt Geiger.


Related Articles
Spend too much? Labour didn't spend enough, says Balls
26 Jan 2014
Ed Miliband promises 'big reforms' on welfare spending
26 Jan 2014
Labour will bring back 50p top rate of tax, says Ed Balls
25 Jan 2014
Ed Balls: 'We are a pro-business party'
26 Jan 2014


They warn that the 50p rate “will have the effect of discouraging business investment in the UK” and is a “backward step” that would quickly lead to job losses.

Charlie Mullins, the founder of Pimlico Plumbers, said it would trigger an exodus of investors like that seen in France after President François Hollande increased the top rate of tax to 75 per cent.

“It would be suicidal,” he said. “Business people are against paying tax, just not at such a punitive rate.”

Another signatory is Richard Caring, the owner of Le Caprice and the Ivy restaurants who has an outstanding £2 million loan to the Labour Party.

He said he was “deflated to see this negative political attack on those trying to support the fragile recovery … This is a complete downer and discouragement for entrepreneurs”.

Sir Stuart, who led Marks & Spencer for six years, added: “This will put at risk all the good work that has been done to put the economy back on track.”

Sir Ian, whose company’s stores include B & Q and Screwfix, said: “Raising the rate is bad economics and sends an anti-business message.”

Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London, urged George Osborne to “open up some more blue water” between the Tories and Labour and cut the top rate back to the pre-2008 rate of 40p.

Mr Johnson writes in his Telegraph column today that politicians should encourage those who “put in the back-breaking hours” and without whom the welfare state could not exist.

He adds that Mr Balls’s proposal shows “the real instincts of the Labour party, now way to the Left of New Labour: populist, anti-capitalist and anti-business”.

Lord Jones, the former Labour trade minister and chairman of the CBI, accused Mr Balls of appealing to tribalism with a measure that was “great politics but it’s lousy economics”.

He added that if Mr Balls became chancellor he would be “amazed” if he resisted putting the rate up further to 60p – a level last seen in 1988.

The shadow chancellor insisted he would not go that far, saying: “It’s absolutely not back to the 1980s or 1990s.”

He also told BBC One’s The Andrew Marr Show that he was unsure how much extra revenue the measure would bring in, but said the 50p rate — introduced as a stop-gap measure in response to the financial crisis in 2009 — had brought in £10 billion over three years.

He said independently verified Government figures that showed cutting the top rate to 45p had only cost the country £100 million were “highly uncertain”.

The views of business leaders on tax policy have played a crucial role in previous election campaigns.

In March 2010, 23 senior businessmen endorsed George Osborne’s plan to halt planned increases in National Insurance, in a major boost to the party.

The Letter

Dear Sir,

We are concerned to see Ed Balls and the Labour Party calling for higher taxes on businesses and business people.

We think that these higher taxes will have the effect of discouraging business investment in the UK.

This is a backwards step which would put the economic recovery at risk and would very quickly lead to the loss of jobs in Britain.

Your sincerely

John Ayton, Chairman, Bremont

Karren Brady, Vice Chairman, West Ham United

Richard Caring

Sir Ian Cheshire, Chief Executive, Kingfisher

Neil Clifford, Chief Executive, Kurt Geiger

Andrew Coppel, Chief Executive, De Vere Group

Peter Cullum, Executive Chairman, Towergate

Philip Dilley, Chairman, London First

Rupert Gavin, CEO, Odeon UK

Michael Gutman, Chief Executive, Westfield Group

Anya Hindmarch, Founder, Anya Hindmarch

Brent Hoberman, Executive Chairman, mydeco

Luke Johnson, Chairman, Risk Capital

Mike Lynch, Chairman, Invoke Capital; Founder, Autonomy

Alistair McGeorge, Chairman, New Look

Charlie Mullins, Founder and CEO, Pimlico Plumbers

Tim Oliver, Founder and Chairman, Hampden

Sir Stuart Rose, Chairman, Ocado

Rob Templeman, Chairman British Retail Consortium, Gala Coral and the RAC

Michael Tobin, Chief Executive, Telecity

Ted Tuppen, Founder, Enterprise Inns

Joseph Wan, CEO, Harvey Nichols

Paul Walsh

Will Wyatt, CEO, Caledonia

Sir Hossein Yassaie, Chief Executive, Imagination Technologies

This letter is signed in a personal capacity.

How much do the heads of 24 of Britain’s most successful companies pay in tax?

% wise?

now define "heads" .... do you mean the CEO? .... if so, then probably an awful lot more than might be imagined from the rantings of some on this site

of course, the same is true about bankers' bonuses about which we all get so hot under the collar