pap

Apparently a number of drinks companies are now challenging this on the grounds that this breaks EU competition rules. A Frenchman was also heard to say "J'adore White Lightning". Probably.

How does that square with the post pub kebab? Do they just chuck grey slivers of donner meat around their own living room?

Cheers Minty. If there is a theme to my posts, I hope it comes across as disillusionment with all of our major parties, and that's largely because I feel that they're all doing little more than re-arranging deck-chairs on the Titanic, or more accurately, twiddling the knobs they feel they're still allowed to touch. As an avid reader of Private Eye, I fully accept that the lot of them have had their fingers in the trough. Perhaps the only difference between this and the last Government on that front is that the Conservatives are a lot more overt about their plans, and, dare I say it, politically bolder in trying to achieve them - particularly given the mandate (or lack, thereof) they have. My view is that the country needs major reform, and that we need to start chipping away at the "untouchables", things that are considered politically immutable - like membership of the EU, a 'progressive' taxation system or drug policy. I know there are elements within each party that are concerned about these issues, but wholesale reform in these areas is just not on the effective political agenda. I'm getting to the point where I believe that all the democracy my tax money buys me is the opportunity to express a preference in a flawed electoral system. Once these boys and girls are in, they're ostensibly indifferent to the real problems the public face, and in many cases, implementing policy in complete contravention of what they promised before the election. I can understand promises being broken due to financial considerations, especially with the parlous finances that the Coalition government. It's the overt ideological vandalism that gets my goat, because from a tax payer's perspective, it really isn't good value for money.

I didn't realise you had an interest in politics, Jamie. Never picked that up from any of your posts. I like the idea that I'm scoring political points. Don't quite know who for, as I've never been a member of a political party and I'm your classic floating voter. Do let me know so that I can forward these 'points' to an appropriate political organ.

At least one.

The Running Man short story is very different from the Arnie film. However, the film is still great, and definitely more upbeat. Extremely prescient too. When it first came out, shows like "Climbing for Dollars" would be unthinkable. With reality shows and the like, doesn't seem quite as implausible. We've already got celebrities being tormented in the jungle, while the baying crowds in the X-Factor audition stages are like a prototype version of those who cheered when lions chowed down on gladiators.

Oh, this is beautiful:- George Osborne's tenants should consider themselves very lucky. That is an astonishly good price for a property of that value in West London, particularly as a 3/4 bedroom place in Notting Hill goes for around ten grand a week.

I listened to George Osborne on the Today Programme this morning, who claimed he didn't earn enough money to pay tax. He has a family home in London, which he rents out. If that place nets him £15K a year he should be a higher rate tax-payer. The Daily Mail (of all places) enumerates his other financial interests:- George Osborne earns £134,565 as Chancellor - just over £15,000 short of 50p tax threshold He rents out Notting Hill family home while living in 10 Downing Street flat Osborne has 15% stake in family wallpaper business which is worth an estimated £4million It is believed that he last year sold £600,000 property in his constituency in Tatton, Cheshire Osborne stands to inherit £4million from a family trust fund - dodging £1.6million inheritance tax Chancellor faced claims he 'flipped' his second home at height of the expenses scandal Reckon you can find fifteen grand in all that? How many family homes in Notting Hill do you reckon you can rent for 15K a year? Incidentally, Osborne's family business is failing, making a loss of almost 800K last year. This is the man we want in charge of the country's finances Daily Mail article

That's the problem though, isn't it? People have different ideas about how big the state should be. In many senses, it's out of our hands. Our membership of the EU means there's a lot of the state we can't get rid of. If we're serious about weaving EU directives into our legislation, then it follows that there will have to be some organ of state to implement and enforce them. The real problem is that we've allowed the most simple things in life to become inordinately complex. Stuff like where you get to live or what you're having for dinner. Our ancestors would have hunted, fished or farmed the land. These days, the EU will pay you money not to farm or fish. Consider all the stuff your family go through a week, then consider the myriad places and things that needed to happen for you to get them. Now I'm not saying that we should return to some idyllic existence of hunter-gathering, but we're sitting on so many resources that are just going to waste - while the cash we do have is needlessly ploughed through system after system - almost all of it unnecessary.

Oh, and for any owners of Sony's new handheld:- Sheet-a-with-a-Vita!* * must always be said with a ridiculously over the top Italian accent.

Speaking purely for myself, I'm always in the bog for a bit anyway. Ms pap is like a rabbit, in and out in a couple of minutes. I'm there for at least ten minutes, don't need all my mental facilities to crimp off cables and don't want to spend my time in there staring at the walls or reading the backs of shampoo bottles (ooh - isopropyl alcohol!). Thus some form of entertainment is required. Newspapers and books are traditional staples, but modern technology has given us a wealth of options:- 1) iPoo - a poo enjoyed with an Apple device, such as an iPad, iPod or iPhone. 2) PSPoo (archaic) - Playing games on the last gen Sony Playstation Portable. 3) Craptop - any laptop, really

Extended trailer. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MhQe8V8IXc&feature=related

Interesting piece from the Telegraph. The IFS think that the budget is based on optimistic assumptions. Lot of truth in that probably. Osborne reckons that people who are getting paid through limited companies because they wanted to avoid the 50% tax rate are suddenly going to go through PAYE because it's now 45%. There are a couple of problems with that approach, naturally. Firstly, anyone working through a limited company pays a lot less than 45% tax. Secondly, if you are in that situation, it's a hassle. You've got to go through all the bother of closing the company down (or paying to keep it going in case the permanent work doesn't pan out), plus there is a massive assumption that a permanent job exists in the first place.

Perception is everything, and you're right - it's not a lot of money, many of these pensioners will realise that. Is it too much to hope that some, particularly the right wingers that don't think too much, will get it all out of proportion and vote UKIP or something?

So it's basically the Tory voting pensioners that have been stuffed? Bonus.

If you're not working, then the only people you would employ would be people to provide a personal service. The only tax you'd need to pay would be the indirect taxes we all get to pay, and they would pay this at the same rate as everyone else. Well, theoretically - at least. As we've seen before, there are plenty of dodges available to those at the top. It's one of the reasons why I like the idea of tax on all income. Doesn't matter if you work or not, then. As soon as non-working playboys spend their money somewhere else, part of that goes to the Government (provided of course, it is spent internally).

Not necessarily. If you're rich enough so that you don't have to work, you're not going to be paying income tax.

Actually, no - but we've just looked. Could be a few things there that would interest her, and it's a good shout. The financial boost would of course, be welcome - but mostly, Ms pap just wants to get back out there.

Sorry trousers. It is nice to see it again though

I can certainly see the sense, but in practice, it has a real effect on certain groups of people - especially mothers looking to return to work. If I upped and left Ms pap tomoz, she'd get all those benefits. However, because I have been the sole breadwinner and taxpayer, we don't get that option. I know that on paper, it makes sense to push people on benefits back into the workplace. I just feel that opportunities like training are wasted on those who do not really want to work, when there are plenty of people crying out to make a positive difference in their lives and the hypothetical workplace which seems to be getting farther away.

JobCentre Plus doesn't give a crap about finding you work unless you are on benefits. You can get free training on benefits. No such help for the likes of Ms pap who hasn't taken any money out of the system save the child benefit we receive.

I am in favour of a flat tax, trousers. All income taxed at the same rate. Special exemptions for focus areas of the economy ( such as solving the energy crisis, etc ). Much simpler, much fairer, much easier to sell and let's face it, same end result. The government takes a cut out of all of us anyway. Just be upfront about it, implement systems to support it and get it done.

The Today Programme, this morning

No, they should have just kept it as it was, for their own sakes, as much as anybody elses. This is political suicide, especially since they've weighed into the pensioners to help pay for it. And all this bolox about their new schemes making 5 times as much money. It's all crap. It's the political equivalent of them saying "yeah love, I'll definitely call you in the morning". The Conservatives have long had a reputation for being the Nasty Party. During the final years of opposition, it did everything it could to present itself as cuddly. I have to hand it to them - they've been deft in getting a lot of their policy through, waving the Lib Dems in criticism's way ( tuition fees = political masterstroke ). However, elements of this budget, such as the 50% rate cut or the so-called granny tax, have TORY punched through them like seaside rock. They can't pin this on Cleggy. I enjoyed your point as always trousers - but you're proceeding from the premise that a decision had to be made on 50% tax. It's not the case at all, and in fact, I'm shocked that this is even a priority for a Government that claims to be trying to address the financial mess. Here's an idea. Why not implement all this loophole dodging stuff and just forget about the 50% tax cut? I am increasingly of the view that this is a smash and grab Government, not really that arsed about governance, but more concerned with helping out as many of its mates as it can, be it through allowing the fronds of private industry to wrap around institutions like the NHS, or just giving them large tax cuts. It's indefensible because these people at 50% can afford it. The middle-to-lower income losers cannot, especially with the rise in fuel duty coming their way.