What happened yesterday

The election yesterday did not go the way I would have liked. Large parts of the coverage where people on the losing side being questioned about what happened and I want to get some of my thoughts out of my head, so here they are.

There should not have been an election

The people who really wanted the election were those who said they didn't want it. Boris Johnson stood on the steps of Downing Street declaring he didn't want one, but he was the one person who needed it most. He lost a record number of votes in parliament after coming to power and then purged the moderate wing of his party, meaning he no longer had a majority and that the country did not have a functioning government.

What should have happened at this point was a vote of no confidence that was won by the opposition and an interim government was formed. This was the point at which they had the power and they gave it away by not acting. The main reason it didn't happen is because they didn't have a government in place waiting to take over, which would have triggered an election which might have resulted in no deal. At the point where no deal was off the table, Boris Johnson was able to call the shots and force an election. The opposition should have called a vote of no confidence at that point because the worst that could have happened was the election we go. The best that could have happened was an interim government overseeing a second referendum.

The reasons it didn't happen were possibly naivety. Jo Swinson insisted that an interim government could not have been led by Jeremy Corbyn, and Corbyn insisted that it had to be led by him. This public display of bravado is possibly what caused the other to not back down. Had it been all played out in private, then perhaps an agreement could have been formed around a leader respected on all side.

Lack of leadership

This brings me to a point about a lack of leadership. Corbyn has never been a leader. He's great at inspiring crowds when electioneering but not at leading a party. Partly because it is not his style and partly because he may not have the credibility to bring people in line having rebelled so many times himself. He was definitely not a natural born leader and didn't expect to get the role but he did so because the party membership were desparate for a new message.

Swinson as mentioned I think is a bit naive. She is possibly also tainted by so recently being a part of the coalition government and left-wing voters being unable to stomach voting for what they view as Tory-lite.

In the last 10 years, I think we've had quite a dearth of leadership in politics. The only people I can think of who I would consider holding as a good example of leadership are 2010 vintage Nick Clegg and Nicola Sturgeon. The reason being, they had a very clear message, communicated it well and were able to convince both their own followers and others, thereby increasing their vote share. Neither of them are perfect, but they are better than a large number of others (many of whom I actually like on a personal level).

Corbyn's insistence on labour or nothing

This is something that caused an issue both with forming an interim government, and also with a possible electoral alliance. The Green/Plaid/Lib Dem pact said that they had approached and wanted to work with labour but labour were not willing.

Someone on the analysis last night was saying that perhaps labour cared more about being "right" than about winning. I think this may be true in some ways. There was a reluctance to taint their brand with a pact, and perhaps they doubled down on the nationalisation and people were worried they would nationalise their gran.

Our electoral system

First past the post is a crap system. I live in a super safe Conservative seat and no matter who I vote for, it always feels irrelevant. However, it is not in the interests of the ruling party to change the system so it probably never will be changed. The one opportunity we have for reform was weak and poorly communicated. As there were council elections on the same day, I'm sure people turned up to be given a piece of paper asking them to vote for whether or not they wanted a change they were unaware of or didn't understand and in that situation very few people would vote for the change.

However, with 649 of 650 results declared, the parties who went into yesterday's election favouring a second referendum came out on over half the vote (50.3% - Labour 32.2%, LD 11.5%, SNP 3.9% and Greens 2.7%). Had we had a different electoral system, perhaps we would now have a government committed to a soft Brexit or to remain.

Corbyn's personal brand

I personally like the chap. I find it difficult to dislike someone who tends their allottment and makes jam. However the public perception is vastly different. Reasons for this include smears from conservatives and the press calling him a Marxist (he's not - very few people appear to have read or studied Marx) and a terrorist sympathiser (he's not - he's one of the biggest pacificists on this planet.

Whilst both of these things are untrue, they are scary to people. There has been no real campaign from the left to counter these and Corbyn himself doesn't lower himself to this level.

Reports from labour campaigners last night were that he came up on the door step as a reason to not vote labour.

A "confused" Brexit strategy

Labour's Brexit strategy was actually simple. However, it was only simple come the election. It appeared to shift over time. And whilst it was simple, the media kept insisting that it wasn't. Contrast this with...

A clear message from the conservatives

"Get Brexit done" doesn't really mean anything and appeared to be the answer to any question on any topic that every Conservative candidate was asked during the election. However parroting it repeatedly clearly got through, was a simple, concise and clear message. Add this to...

A core base of conservative voters

There are a core base of conservative voters in this country who will not vote for any other party. And then there are the floating voters. Moderate remain tory voters were maybe less likely to abandon them than leave Labour voters were likely to abandon their party. Couple this with...

An acceptable non-Tory leave vote

The Brexit party standing in labour held seats would have given labour voters an option that they felt they could vote for to express that they wanted to leave the EU without having to vote for the hated Conservative party.

A united conservative party

Having got rid of all the dissenters earlier this year, the conservative party were completely united. Everyone of them had signed up to Johnson's deal with the EU (despite some of them possibly believing it to be worse than Theresa May's deal) and they presented a united front. I don't think that was as true for the labour party - especially on the issue of our status in the EU.

People who aren't as interested in politics as I am

I don't mean this as a slight. I am interested in politics and could give you a good summary of the current situation at any one point in time. I am less interested in I'm A Celebrity, however I would still have views on who I want to win it, the same way that someone who is not really interested in politics may have a view about who they want to win.

Things that I may think of as big important factors to take into consideration - the leaked reports on the trade talks with the US, Johnson repeatedly hiding from scrutiny and the like - may not have had a lot of impact on people who aren't politics geeks because they just aren't as interested in it. 

At this stage, I doubt whether even the Russian report probably would have had an impact.

The normalisation of lying

This is the most worrying of all. Trump got to power on a throne of lies. It has been shown that 88% of Conservative adverts during the campaign where either lies or misrpresntations of the truth. However, scrutiny of these sorts of things isn't up to the standard I would want from journalists, and there are no electoral rules around this like voting reform, it isn't in the interests of the winning party to change them unless it favours them. I can imagine a hung party and a coalition of the smaller parties may have pushed for both of these things but I doubt that will happen now for at least another five years.

How do we overcome all this?

I have no freaking clue and I'm too tired to even think about this, but I hope for the sake of future generations we find a way to do so.

Why I have joined the labour party

A few weeks ago I joined the Labour Party. On the political spectrum, I have always been somewhere between Labour and the Green Party. There are large portions of both  their recent manifestos that I agree with, but a few things in each that I don't.

I have been involved, in a very small way, with both parties previously, but have never fully committed to either. This is partly due to uncertainty about which to opt for, partly because there were elements of their policies that I disagreed with, and partly because I was not motivated or political enough to commit.

After the 2015 general election, I vowed to become more politically aware and more politically active. That's why I started this blog in the first place and why I have been listening to podcasts on weekly basis, reading more political articles online and in newspapers, and sharing more political posts on the Facebook.

This year's general election was a revelation for me. For the first time, I felt a connection with one of the leaders who stood a realistic chance of becoming Prime Minister. There had been party leaders I connected with previously, such as Caroline Lucas, and potential Prime Ministers who I liked, such as Ed Miliband (who I like even more now he's a bit freer and a bit more amusing) but never a potential Prime Minister who I felt a connection with and who I felt was believable and honest.

I appreciate that there are elements of Labour party policy (such as renewal of Trident) and also parts of Corbyn's own beliefs (such as the abandonment of HS2 and to a lesser extent, the abandonment of the monarchy) that I might not agree with. However, I think it is highly unlikely that I will agree on everything with anybody, and the world would be a very boring place if that were so.

And so, I have, along with a large number of other people, taken the step to become a member of the Labour party.

I know that Corbyn as a leader isn't to everyone's tastes, both inside and outside of the party. However, his views are much closer to my own than any previous government in my lifetime. He also seems like one of the most honest and down to earth politicians currently around.

I remember the excitement when Tony Blair and New Labour won the 1997 election. I was just too young to vote at that point, but I felt that perhaps a fundamental change had happened in the country. I was born in the year that Margaret Thatcher came into power and so my whole life to that point had been under a Conservative government.

Things did change, however perhaps not as much as I had expected. New Labour were very much a centrist government and so I feel that I have lived my whole life under a right wing or centrist government that doesn't represent me. I'd love for us to elect a left-wing government that resonates with more of my views, along with those of many of my friends and peers.

I hope that the surge in Labour party members (a party which is funded by its members rather than large donors like the Conservative party) helps to make a difference and helps to make that happen, and that I will be able to play a part in it, however small that may be.

A letter to my MP on public sector pay increases

Dear Mr Collins,

I am writing to you as a response to the vote on the Labour amendment to the Queen’s speech which was voted down this past week.

I am aware that I may not have the same views as you on several matters, and public sector pay increases may be one of them. I therefore appreciate that when votes such as this come up in the House of Commons, they might not result in the outcome that I would desire.

However, I find the reaction of several Conservatives when the result of the vote was announced to be unacceptable. Were you one of the MPs who cheered the outcome of the vote? Do you think it is appropriate for your colleagues to do so?

What the MPs were cheering was a vote to deny a pay increase to some of the most important people in our society. Doctors, nurses, firemen, policemen – those who care for our health and our safety – are among those being denied increases. I fear that if their salaries continue to decline in real terms, that we will struggle to find people to fill these vital professions.

I can understand that the Conservative party has different views on the issue to myself, but literally cheering when you are denying these people a pay rise seems cruel and heartless.

I have calculated how an unqualified nurse’s pay would have changed since 2010, when the policy of austerity was first introduced. At that point, NHS say the nurse’s salary would have been £17,000. Since that time, they would have had a pay increase of 1% every year from 2012, meaning their salary would now be £18,046, a cumulative increase of 6.2%.

Inflation in the years from 2010 to 2017 (with an average figure used for the months of 2017 to date) has been 3.3%, 4.5%, 2.8%, 2.6%, 1.5%, 0.0%, 0.7% and 2.4%. Had the nurse’s salary kept up with inflation, it would be £20,258 now, so the nurse would be £2,212 or 12.3% worse off in real terms. This shortfall is, I imagine, the reason why we have been hearing stories of nurses having to use food banks.

As a comparison, MPs salaries in 2010 – when you were first elected – was £65,738. It is soon to rise to £76,011. This is a cumulative increase of 15.6%, significantly higher than the nurse’s 6.2%.

To apply inflation to MPs salaries, you would now be at £78,337 – a difference of £2,326. So in absolute terms, the shortfall against inflation is only slightly different to that of the nurse but in relative terms, it is only 3.1% behind inflation, compared to the nurse’s salary which is 12.3% behind inflation.

I am aware that independent bodies advise on these increases and so it is largely outside of your control. The power to award public pay increases is within the control of parliament. When your government continues denying those in the public sector an increase and making them fall significantly behind inflation is in my opinion cruel in its own right, but when those voting for it are being rewarded much closer to inflation and earning substantially more than the median wage, it becomes ethically questionable.

I was hoping you could explain to me why you voted against this amendment to allow my partner as well as several of my friends in your constituency a pay increase, whether you think it is appropriate for elected representatives to cheer when denying pay increases to their constituents, and whether you think it is morally defensible for MPs to continue to deny them the proposed increase when your own salaries are increasing at a higher rate.

Yours sincerely,

Stewart Cork

Labour and their perceived economic incompetence

Labour have, historically, been portrayed as party of economic incompetence. The note left by Liam Byrne in 2010 clearly didn't help matters. But it wasn't just this. For some reason, the fact that they seem to care more about the workers than about big businesses has always led some people to think that they will be unable to run the economy.

The smartest thing that they have done in this election campaign is to have a fully costed manifesto. Every penny that will be spent is balanced with every penny that will come in. And yet, they are still being attacked on their economic competence.

Diane Abbott didn't help things when getting her numbers in a twist, but the man currently in charge of all of the government's money, chancellor of the exchequer Philip Hammond did a very similar thing and was not criticised in anywhere near as strong terms as Abbott was.

The Conservatives have still tried to attack Labour's numbers and their economic ability, despite there being very few numbers of their own in the Conservative manifesto. One of the few that is in there is the fact that they will get rid of free school dinners give each child 7p for breakfast every day, the equivalent of a few cornflakes without any milk. Literally snatching food away from them in the same way that Maggie Thatcher snatched kids milk back in the 1980s.

They have come up with a catchphrase of the "magic money tree," despite the fact that there is a nice neat little table explaining where all the money will be coming from without any mention of fauna. They are clearly leaning on the lingering perception that the public have no confidence in how Labour will handle the country's finances. They could criticise each of the measures but they have instead elected to just play on voter's emotions.

They then attack the missing spend on nationalising energy companies, train companies, royal mail. This is a bit of a misnomer. The Labour manifesto clearly budgets for all revenue income and expenditure. Any company would then budget for capital spend separately as you would not expect it to pay for itself at the time of purchase.

All of these nationalisation projects would be accounted for separately as they are investment projects. When a business is looking a similar project, such as an acquisition, they would be looking at the future income streams of the company they are intending to purchase and when that would be paid back.

They would use technical accounting concepts such as net present value (NPV) which works out using the cost of borrowing money and the expected future cash flows whether it is a worthwhile investment.

Where there is a difference in the cost of acquisition over the cost of the company's assets, this is put on the balance sheet as an intangible item known as goodwill. This would be things such as the customer base, reputation, staff qualifications or anything else that can't be quantified exactly. This goodwill would then be depreciated each year. This means that a portion of the additional cost of these intangible items will be charged against income each year. This is a basic concept of accounting known as the accruals concept which involves making sure that the money you make and the cost of making that money are matched off against each other.

So the reason why this isn't in Labour's costings is because it is outside of the annual spend that they have detailed. You could still try to claim that it is missing, however to include it would have given away how much they are willing to spend on the acquisition of these companies (as Theresa May has said with regards to the EU, she doesn't want to show her hand as it is a poor negotiating tactic) but also because it would have required a full set of calculations that would have probably only been understood by those with accounting experience. There are also large number of assumptions which would need to be made.

Let's look at an example. We will take Royal Mail as it is fully traded on the London Stock Exchange and easy to get data for.

I will simplify this rather than doing a full in depth accounting analysis in an attempt to make sure that all readers can understand this.

Their profit for the financial year to the end of March 2017 was £273m. As of today (5th June 2017), the market capitalisation of the Royal Mail is £4,391m. Market capitalisation is simply the number of shares multiplied by the current price per share. This gets you the value of the company. So if Labour wanted to buy the Royal Mail, they would need to spend £4.4 billion pounds in order to buy out all the current shareholders.

For the sake of argument, let's assume that Royal Mail will make a profit of £273m per year, adjusted for inflation, which the Bank of England suggests will be 2.8% next year. We will assume inflation stays at the same rate for the future. Therefore profits next year will be £273m x 102.8% = £281m. The year after, they would be £281m x 102.8% = £289m etc.

The government probably doesn't have £4.4 billion lying around to buy up the shares, so they would need to borrow the money. Again, for the sake of argument, let's assume that the government can borrow at the Bank of England base rate which currently stands at 0.25%. This is unlikely, but to be able to do any calculations, we will assume this is so. The government would then owe an additional 0.25% of the total outstanding loan value each year, which would be added onto the total borrowing. For ease of calculation, let's assume that the government borrows this all on the last day of 2017 and repayments start in 2018.

Let's assume that the government pays back £200m per year.

Under these assumptions, as can be seen in the table below, the loan would be entirely paid off by the end of 2040 and in addition to this, Royal Mail would be adding funds to the UK purse every year (as the profit each year is above the £200m repayments) which could then be spent on other things. After 2040, all Royal Mail profits would be able to be reinvested into other services as there would no longer be interest payments.

We can increase the rate of borrowing and see what happens. If we raise it to 2% but retain the same rate of payments (£200m per year) then we are still adding additional funds to the UK purse. The only difference is that the loan isn't fully paid off until the end of 2047.

So we can see that as long as we can keep the repayments less than the expected profit that any of these industries make, and as long as we can secure enough borrowing to acquire all the organisations that we wish to nationalise, then it could become both profitable to the country as well as the fact that we could control prices for consumers and also the quality of the product.

Obviously this will increase the national debt, however you have to spend money to make money. Many of us borrow money to buy mortgages on our house. Most companies have to borrow start up capital. It is no different to this. In fact it is better, because unlike a start up business which is likely to lose money in its first year, we know that Royal Mail, Southern Rail (£29.3m in 2015), British Gas (£553m in 2016) and the like are all profitable and will provide a return on their investment.

Increasing the national debt is not in itself a bad thing, as long as when you increase it you have a plan to pay it back. Nationalisation includes a built in plan to pay back this money and also to make a profit.

The Labour government see this as a long term investment, unlike the Conservative government who have a history of selling parts of our national infrastructure off to private investors for a short term income gain but losing the long term benefit of the income stream.

Who Am I Voting For? A poem about the election

I'm not voting for me,
I've got enough cash
But I know each of us are just a few steps away
From falling in the trash.

So I'm voting for those who have fallen
And those yet to fall.
I'm voting for my countrymen, one and all.
Not just the men but the women too,
Including all of those who have suffered abuse
And are now being asked to prove
That their child was born as a result of rape.
What are we, apes?

No, we are human beings
But we seem to forget that others have feelings.
We seem to believe they're not deserving of aid
Just because of how much they get paid.
I'm voting for those on zero hours contracts

Who never know how much they'll get in their pay check,
Living day to day, unsure if they can make the rent.

I'm voting for those in the public sector
Whose pay has been frozen for several years.
I’m voting for those who the government reduce to tears
Or even worse – those who have died
After being told they are fit for work
Or, from stress, committed suicide.

I'm voting for the overworked teachers
Who spend their own money on materials, so the kids can learn
Even though they don’t have money to burn.

I'm voting for the tired nurse
Who works extra hours at the end of her shift
And I’m voting for those who need treatment
But for months have been on the waiting list.

I'm voting for those without a home to call their own
Those who the council are unable to home
Who live on the streets or on a friend’s floor
Or told who are told to relocate to another town.

I’m voting for the student who isn’t sure
If university is something that they can afford.

I'm voting for those less fortunate than myself,
I’m voting for those who will never see wealth.
Because in the future it may be me,
And I want to live in a caring society.

I'm voting for those who feel they were lied to
By politicians of all colours, red orange or blue.

I'm voting for hope.
I'm voting for change.
 I'm voting for a man who will do what he says.

The future of housing

A month ago, I wrote a post detailing how the conservatives have been destroying social housing.

As a follow up, I thought I would look at the housing policies contained in the manifestos of the two main parties and give my thoughts on them.

For a handy summary, see page 8 of my friend's manifesto summary.

Let's start with the Conservative's manifesto.

Aim to eliminate rough sleeping by 2027

"To achieve this we will set up a new homelessness reduction taskforce that will focus on prevention and affordable housing, and we will pilot a Housing First approach to tackle rough sleeping."

I have no idea what this means other than that they're going to employ some people to try to stop people living on the streets. I'm not sure how useful this will be. When people end up on the streets, they may have been failed by the support systems. Another support system would be good, but we could just invest more in the current systems. Affordable housing is malleable term, as I discussed in my last post on housing. This is largely just a sticking plaster, trying to eliminate the symptoms of the problem rather than the causes (e.g. unaffordable housing, low paid work, income inequality etc).

Ban letting agent fees

This - or a form of it - appears in the Tory, Labour and LibDem manifestos, so I think it's safe to say it's getting done. It's a good idea in principle. Letting agents charge through the roof for upfront fees and checks which can be a barrier to some people acquiring suitable accommodation. My worry with this is whether the agents will not want to lose out and so will load fees onto monthly rent which might cause landlords to increase the rent they are asking for, which may have a knock on effect on average rental prices.

Modernise home buying process so it is less costly

There is little detail on this, so I'm not sure what they plan to do. The fees when you buy a house are valuation fees, surveyors fees, estate agent fees and solicitors fees. I'm not sure which off these the government really feels they have control over. The only thing they could really do to help purchasers would be to remove the VAT on these fees.

Improve protection for renters

They will encourage landlords to offer longer tenancies. There is absolutely no detail on how they will do this. Some landlords are restricted on the length of tenancy they can offer by their mortgage lender, so it might be that the government would need to start there. However, 93% of landlords (who own 81% of UK rental properties) only own one property. This is the situation I am in because I have moved in with my partner and rented out my property. Landlords in this situation may not want to be locked into a long term tenancy as they may need to sell their property when their family needs to move to a larger home.

Deliver 2015 commitment to deliver one million homes by 2020 and another half million by 2022

Whilst there is some contention about the current rate of housebuilding (partly due to measuring it on starts and completions), the figure for 2015/16 is somewhere between 140,000 and 164,000. We would need to be producing homes at a rate of 200,000 a year for the first five years and then 250,000 a year for the next two in order to hit this commitment. We are currently significantly short of this number.

The issues with increasing this number are multiple. Firstly, there needs to be the funding available. Many housing associations are struggling due to rental cuts as I mentioned before.

There needs to be the land available. Unquestionably, there is enough land in the UK to build this number of houses, however getting started on it is tricker. Some companies have been land banking (holding onto land until the value rises), and some land is designated green land which is always contentious when you attempt to build there. Living near a proposed garden town, I have seen a lot of local resistance to building.

There needs to be adequate infrastructure - roads, rail links, doctors, schools etc. If you attempt to build in an area without the infrastructure in place or at least planned, then you will create more problems than you solve.

Finally, and most importantly, we do not have enough labour to increase the number as significantly as promised. The construction industry would need to recruit significantly more workers in order to keep up with demand. Previously, it has also relied on workers from inside the EU, and when we leave in a couple of years time, this might put further demands on the workforce.

Give councils power to intervene where developers don't act on planning permission

This is a good idea. I don't know why they've not done it before. It seems like a quick win.

Build new fixed-term social housing which will be sold privately after 10-15

Yes to more social housing but no to making it be sold! Seriously, the government hasn't learnt that they have not been replacing social housing at the rate it is being sold off under the right to buy. This is a stop gap solution which will exacerbate the problem for the next generation. Keep social housing as social housing. The Conservatives talk about not wanting to burden the future generations with debt, but they are happy to burden them with other problems.

Let's move on to the Labour manifesto.

Build 100,000 more council and housing association homes for genuinely affordable rent or sale

What I like best about this is that it suggests they are going to redefine the term affordable that the government keeps redefining in order to make it actually means what it says again.

They have pledged to create a new Department for Housing which will aim to tackle the crisis by improving the number, standards and affordability of homes, prioritising brownfield sites. A department for housing is a great idea and is long overdue.

Powers for councils to build the homes the communities need

This is a good idea in principle, as councils will be able to more easily understand local demands. I'm worried that if it turns into a situation with councils forcing home building on local communities that this will cause conflict. Our local council have been pushing ahead with house building plans despite lots of local opposition who claim council abuse of their powers, and I can only see it getting worse if these powers increase.

Suspend right to buy until councils prove they can replace them like for like

This is great. This would mean that the number of social homes is maintained whilst allowing people to get a foot on the housing ladder. This was a conservative promise which has been broken.

One main problem with selling off social housing without replacing it in the local area is social cleansing, which has been most pronounced in London as councils have been trying to move residents to Birmingham.

Labour's policy would ensure that people can stay in the community where they live, where they children go to school, where their friends and families and support networks are.

I think the only downside might be residents who want to buy but where the council isn't able to build, but I'm sure there are solutions to that.

Inflation cap on rent rises and three year tenancies as the norm

I am in favour of an inflation cap. This will help people retain their tenancies rather than having landlords impose high rent inflation on them and force them out of their home. Three year tenancies I am a little more torn on. There are instances when this is not right for either the landlord or the tenant. Some people will only want to be in a certain place for a short length of time. As long as there are adequate ways to terminate the tenancy earlier, this should be a good policy.

Ban letting agents fees for tenants

This was discussed earlier as the Conservatives have also promised this.

Plan to end rough sleeping within the parliament 

There seems to be a good plan behind this. They will make available 4,000 additional homes reserved for people with a history of rough sleeping. They have pledged to reverse the Tory cuts to welfare which have forced some people into homelessness. They will be safe guarding homeless hostels and supported housing which has suffered under this government.

They also pledge to deal with the causes rather than just the effect which was discussed in the Conservative manifesto, which means they are offering a more long-term solution to the problem.

How much extra tax will I pay under labour?

The answers is probably none.

After the media sent out conflicting scaremongering messages about the pledges in the Labour manifesto, I decided to look into it myself.

The current rates on income tax are 20% for earnings between £11,500 and £45,000, 40% for earnings between £45,000 and £150,000 and 45% for earnings above that.

If you earn £11,500 or less, you will pay no income tax at all. If you earn £11,501, you don't suddenly start paying 20% on all £11,501. You will just pay it on earnings above £11,500, i.e. on £1. So you would just pay 20p tax.

This is something that seems to confuse some people. You pay a percentage on everything you earn that falls within that band.

The proposal in the Labour manifesto is that the banding for the 45% tax rate will begin at £80,000 rather than £150,000 and there will be a new 50% tax rate for any income above £123,000.

I have created a chart below which shows these changes. The max tax for the band and max additional tax are the important numbers. If you earn up to £11,500, you can see that the maximum tax for the band is £0 and this is the same under both the current and proposed tax rates.

If you earn between £80,000 and £123,000, the current maximum tax you could pay (if you earn at the top of the band) is £37,899 per year. Under the new system, this will increase to £40,049, an increase of £2,150.

So for the majority of people, there will be no additional tax. Their proposed changes are intended to only affect 5% of the workforce who earn over £80,000. The current workforce stands at 31.95 million, so 5% works out to be around 1.6 million people. This sounds like a lot and the press have been using this number to attempt to make their readership angry about it.

However, it is important to remember this is only for the top 5% of earners. If we look at a list of salaries by profession, we can see the sorts of people who will be affected by this. The list is from 2015 so is slightly out of date. We can see that those professions where the average salary is over £80,000 include Chief Executives and Senior Professionals, brokers, aircraft pilots and flight engineers, marketing directors and sales directors.

You are not talking about your average Joe.

As well as the newspapers using the tax rises to turn the public against the Labour party, the Conservatives have plain lied about what the tax rises are. The tweet below was sent earlier this week. Whilst we have seen that just over a million people will be affected, the tweet uses the word "millions" which suggests that many more people will be affected than actually would be.

It also says that they will be increasing the basic rate of income tax to 25p. 25p in every pound would be an effective tax rate of 25% and as we've seen, this is not any part of the proposal and is an outright lie.

It is this sort of electioneering (along with the £350 million for the NHS bus pledge) which make the public disillusioned with politics and politicians.