Johnson resigns as Shadow Chancellor

[Tangled up in Blue]

http://gu.com/p/2mh7z

Interesting.My money's on Ed Balls to take over.He'll make it a lot hotter for Osborne.

 

[Swiss Tony]

Labour in downward spiral,i predict ten years in the wilderness for the brothers.
Now Barners lets discuss more important issues,fancy a home win tomorrow?

 

[MK Shrimper]

Labour in downward spiral,i predict ten years in the wilderness for the brothers.
Now Barners lets discuss more important issues,fancy a home win tomorrow?

Really? I can see mass unrest when Cameron's swinging cuts start biting and the end of the coalition.

And for your second point, unfortunately I reckon it'll be 1-1.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Bloody hell, Ed Miliband really is making a mess of this. That's two of his shadow cabinet down within the first 3 or 4 months and the opposition don't get half the scrutiny of the government.

To make matters worse for Miliband they were "surprise" appointments in the first place. Woolas should never have been appointed with (a) that court case hanging over him and (b) the campaign that he ran. Johnson was a shock as shadow chancellor given his lack of economic credentials and the many differences in opinion with Red Ed. It's not exatly been a surprise that he's failed to master his brief.

The leader of the opposition's judgement is starting to look very iffy.

 

[steveo]

Labour in downward spiral,i predict ten years in the wilderness for the brothers.
Now Barners lets discuss more important issues,fancy a home win tomorrow?

What does the Guardian think?

 

[steveo]

Really? I can see mass unrest when Cameron's swinging cuts start biting and the end of the coalition.

And for your second point, unfortunately I reckon it'll be 1-1.

Do you think the cuts should be less severe but last longer? On a personal note, if you was in the financial ****, would you take really severe measures to get back on track sooner, or less severe measures that will last longer? I think i would prefer the short term option.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Labour in downward spiral,i predict ten years in the wilderness for the brothers.
Now Barners lets discuss more important issues,fancy a home win tomorrow?

Actually, I'm convinced that this will be a one term Tory led coalition, with Labour having to pick up the pieces of the mess made of the economy, after the Coalition's drastic public spending cuts.I also think there's a good chance Ed Balls will challenge Miliband for the Labour party leadership (again) before the next GE.
And yes I think we're due for our first home win of the new year tonight.:happy:

(These are my personal opinions,btw and not The Guardian's). :winking:

 

[canveyshrimper]

Actually, I'm convinced that this will be a one term Tory led coalition, with Labour having to pick up the pieces of the mess made of the economy, after the Coalition's drastic public spending cuts.I also think there's a good chance Ed Balls will challenge Miliband for the Labour party leadership (again) before the next GE.
And yes I think we're due for our first home win of the new year tonight.:happy:

(These are my personal opinions,btw and not The Guardian's). :winking:

Oh the irony.

 

[MK Shrimper]

Do you think the cuts should be less severe but last longer? On a personal note, if you was in the financial ****, would you take really severe measures to get back on track sooner, or less severe measures that will last longer? I think i would prefer the short term option.

Short term measures that will screw up the poor while the rich can still drink Dom Perignon from a swans arsehole. Close up tax loopholes that will bring in billions, stop the obscene bonus culture of the city and then maybe we'd all be in this together, because to me it looks like the poor are suffering for the sins of the mega rich.

 

[Crabby Shrimper]

Labour having to pick up the pieces of the mess made of the economy, after the Coalition's drastic public spending cuts.

I believe the expression of choice amongst today's youth would be ROFLMAO!

Not old enough to remember, but has there been a time when Labour has left the economy in a better condition than when they took over?

 

[Uncle Leo]

Short term measures that will screw up the poor while the rich can still drink Dom Perignon from a swans arsehole.

Tut tut. It's a pheasant's arsehole for Dom Perignon you oik.

Back on topic, I actually think this is a bit lucky for Miliband. Johnson was horribly out of his depth as Shadow Chancellor but, having appointed him, Miliband was going to have to stick by him for a good while yet. Thanks to this resignation, Miliband has got rid of Johnson without having to wield the knife himself.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

I believe the expression of choice amongst today's youth would be ROFLMAO!

Not old enough to remember, but has there been a time when Labour has left the economy in a better condition than when they took over?

Try 1951,1970,1979 and 2010 just to mention a few post war dates.

 

[Jedi Shrimper]

To be perfectly honest I don't think either party are capable of running the country well. Invariably the periods of conservative rule end in mass unemployment and a widening gap between poor & and rich, before labour come in create more employment but in the process spend the country into huge debt so the tories come in and start making cuts...and so on and so on.

Something new is required, a change in thinking, and making massive cuts then going back to how we were before isn't going to solve it.

 

[MK Shrimper]

Something new is required, a change in thinking, and making massive cuts then going back to how we were before isn't going to solve it.

Viva la revolution brother :happy:






I'm joking my free market right wing friends!

 

[Thorpe Groyney]

So it turns out he didn't resign for political reasons, but to sort out his marriage, as his wife was humping his bodyguard. In that context, it puts Miliband's judgment out of the question, when people resign for such reasons.

It also raises a genuinely intriguing few months ahead. Ed Balls has a PR profile on a par with a Tunisian president but is acknowledged in and around Westminster as having a great economic brain. The current chancellor, at least, will be very sad Johnson has gone.

 

[Neil_F]

Close up tax loopholes that will bring in billions,

Which ones did you have in mind?

stop the obscene bonus culture of the city and then maybe we'd all be in this together, because to me it looks like the poor are suffering for the sins of the mega rich.

Now here is an interesting thing. Let's assume that UK bank staff get a total of £10bn in bonuses this year. I'll assume that they are 50% taxpayers for ease of calculation and all subject to National Insurance, which probably isn't the case for a lot of them, but simplicity rules. So, of that £10bn, the State rakes in:

Income Tax: £5bn

Employee National Insurance: £0.1bn

Employer National Insurance: £1.28bn

That totals £6.38bn out of a total payment of £11.28bn, that is an effective tax rate of 56.6%. Now, there is usually a counterbalance to that, which is that the amount paid in bonuses, including the employer National Insurance, is deductible for coporation tax purposes. At 28% that means a deduction of £3.16bn. So the net flow to the Treasury is £3.22bn. (6.38 - 3.16)

Hang on though - all these banks have huge historic losses that they can carry forward against future profits so they won't actually pay corporation tax this year. That means the net flow to the Treasury is the full £6.38bn

If they don't pay the bonuses then the taxpayer gets nothing. Which would you prefer?

There is an economic point as well about strengthening balance sheets and improving capital ratios, but there would be no immediate cash benefit to the Treasury

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Try 1951,1970,1979 and 2010 just to mention a few post war dates.

WTF?

To be perfectly honest I don't think either party are capable of running the country well. Invariably the periods of conservative rule end in mass unemployment and a widening gap between poor & and rich, before labour come in create more employment but in the process spend the country into huge debt so the tories come in and start making cuts...and so on and so on.

Something new is required, a change in thinking, and making massive cuts then going back to how we were before isn't going to solve it.

A coalition between Conservatives and Lib Dems?

So it turns out he didn't resign for political reasons, but to sort out his marriage, as his wife was humping his bodyguard. In that context, it puts Miliband's judgment out of the question, when people resign for such reasons.

It also raises a genuinely intriguing few months ahead. Ed Balls has a PR profile on a par with a Tunisian president but is acknowledged in and around Westminster as having a great economic brain. The current chancellor, at least, will be very sad Johnson has gone.

Not a resigning matter.

It's an excuse.

Ed Balls speaking on economic issues will be a timely reminder to everyone of who allowed this mess to happen in the first place, which is one of the reasons why Miliband didn't appoint him in the first place. In fact none of the reasons why Ed Miliband didn't appoint Balls as Shadow Chancellor in the first place have changed.

ps Got to like the already prepared resignation letter for Johnson that Ed just had to date.

 

[Crabby Shrimper]

Try 1951,1970,1979 and 2010 just to mention a few post war dates.

Now you're just making yourself a laughing stock!

 

[EastStandBlue]

Try 1951,1970,1979 and 2010 just to mention a few post war dates.

I'd love to hear your reasoning for that particular year.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Short term measures that will screw up the poor while the rich can still drink Dom Perignon from a swans arsehole. Close up tax loopholes that will bring in billions, stop the obscene bonus culture of the city and then maybe we'd all be in this together, because to me it looks like the poor are suffering for the sins of the mega rich.

I thought you were a socialist?

If a banker makes big profits for a bank, should (s)he (and the tax-payer) share in the fruits of his labour, or should that money go to the bank?