ComRes show 19 point Tory lead
Posted on April 27th, 2009 by Anthony Wells
ComRes’s monthly poll for the Independent is out, and shows topline figures of CON 45%(+5), LAB 26%(-2), LDEM 17%(-1). Changes are from the last ComRes poll, carried out at the end of March.
The figures are almost the same as yesterday’s YouGov poll in the Sunday People. We haven’t had any post-budget figures from ICM, Populus or MORI yet, but so far it is looking as if, between the rows over MPs expenses, “smeargate” and the budget, we have seen a further shift against Labour and we are back into Tory landslide territory. Obviously there is a long way to go until a 2010 election, but the June local and European elections aren’t looking pretty for Labour.
Filed under: Communicate, Voting Intention
Given that we’ve now had three polls all showing Tory leads of 18/19 points when if ever would Labour feel that replacing GB is the best option especialy as that would inevitably lead to an early GE?
Now?
After June (?defeat)?
Party Conference in October ?
After GE (?defeat) ?.
Well I was just thinking that David. Labour is going to face a massive defeat in June and I really do wonder what Labour will do when that happens, I suspect we may start to hear rumours about “rebel” MP’s and coups etc. Of course, in reality that won’t help as when a party starts arguing, they will only fall further. This poll is dreadful for Labour (I am a supporter myself) and I am just wondering what the summer polls will show (i.e how big the tory lead)
It appears that between McPoison, a budget that doesn’t add up and Brown offering MP’s 150 pounds (without receipts) just for turning up, that we’ve moved towards landslide territory. With three blunders in rapid succession, I don’t think that any pollster will ever be able to separate the effects of each blunder, but between them, the public mood has moved on.
A lot of Labour backbenchers are going to be very worried, now. How are they going to react?
Say the lead is 17-19 now all the way to the local elections, and then Labour are destroyed at the locals, and the national Tory lead is still 17-19 at that point in June with there being no reason to expect a reduction. Can GB really survive June in that case?
Surely Labour have absolutely nothing to lose at that point forcing GB out. Even if it gets publicly very messy.
Its going to get very seriously bad for Labour. I suspect the poll in June will have them at 21/22 with the Tories 50/52 then I think Brown will stand down !
David D,
If it were to happen I think it most likely to occur in the aftermath of the June elections. All of Brown’s last hopes have been exhausted; the ‘do nothing’ attack, the G20 meeting, the budget, even trying to take the initiative on MP’s expenses has backfired. There really would be nothing on the horizon for Brown to look forward to and similarly nothing for Labour MP’s to pencil in as Brown’s last chance. So if it were to happen then I suspect they would replace him over the summer and attempt to start again with the October Party Conference.
That said this is probably one of those situations in which what the Party feels obliged to do will either make no difference or make it worse. Can you imagine the reaction of the public to a governing Party which changes its leader during a recession? Not good I’m guessing.
I think a 27% average opinion poll rating could very well lead to a disastrous sub-20% showing in the Euro elections. Labour could sink below 10% in a region like the South East with ratings like this.
The Tories won’t poll 50% in the Euro elections because of support for minor parties. A score in the high 30s would be a good result for them.
Don’t forget, so long as he is PM and hasn’t been booted out as leader he can ask for a dissolution. If it gets really bad for him best thing he can do is hold that threat over his party (turkeys and Christmas) resign in Oct/Nov (”Only fair to young family” “More to life than politics”). At least then he wouldn’t have been defeated.
It has been clear for months that Gordon Browns Labour Party have been well out of touch with the electorate. The Conservatives faced the same problem after their last stint in power. This time I sense there is a real feel that the country has been let down by mismanagement. I live in the centre of Sunderland and have many friends from all political persuasions but I believe there is now a real change of opinion happening with many previous anti Tory voters listening to David Cameron and their candidate for Sunderland Central Lee Martin with increasing enthusiasm, something I never dreamed of happening in Werside. It is up to the Conservatives now, play their cards right and according to tonights poll , Electoral Calculus suggests Sunderland Central will elect a Conservative MP at the next election, that indeed would be ground breaking..
He will shuffle the deck chairs on the Titanic after the locals/Europeans.
Just seems the polls just keep getting worse for Labour, I wonder how some of the Labour activists we sometimes witness on here will spin this?
Awful poll for Labour. The local and european elections are only 5 weeks away. Short of a well dealt with national disaster I can’t think how the government is going to regain the publics favour. An absolute drubbing awaits them in May.
@M Will the media & public except a 2nd unelected leader though, without a rapid general election? Labour could well do themselves even more damage.
I know constitutionally they could do it, but I don’t remember a parliamentary precedent where 2 prime ministers in a succsession have not been elected.
Surely the possibility would be of a November election if Brown is forced out over the summer. Can believe even Labour could run credibly longer than that with another new leader
SWING FROM LAB TO CON 8.9%
SWING FROM LIB DEM TO CON 7.1%
all in all a bad night for labour on thoes figures and don’t rule out a land slide yet to monthly predictions for april based on all polls this month is for a conservative majority of 106
A repeat of last year coming up? A lovely summer for the Conservatives?
But will Gordon Brown be able to turn things round again at party conference, saving his bacon and “looking good in a crisis” by the autumn?
Andy
really can’t believe that gordan can bounce again! Surely things are too far gone!!!
Very interesting responses to my questions. Thank you all. However the next question is surely
As GB also reads the polls and the forecasts of his own demise how will he react?
Does this not depend on his character and how he sees his own position?
Is he at least partly a bully? In which case might he hold the sword of a GE over his party and hope its effective and things will improve by the Autumn?
Is he rather more a schemer? In which case might he call a GE now (4th June) and bring down with him his detractors, very many of whom will lose their seats and unlike him be without both a substantial income and a realistic way forward in career terms?
Not an enviable choice but the options on a GE this year would seem to be shortening!
@Andy – dead cats bounce, but surely not once they’ve rotted away
Does anyone know if there will be a market for GB to do after dinner speaking or is there a different role he would take on once booted out?
Sorry maybe wasnt clear in my earlier posting, if you put in to the Electoral Calculus web sites prediction option Sunderland Central on tonights voting intentions would give Wearside a Conservative MP.
If, and I do mean IF things still look this bad in the summer, then the possibility of a leadership election is possible. Here’s how they’d manage it:
1. Brown would resign on health grounds, siting his increasing vision problems. Not made up, he really is going blind as various comment pieces have pointed out over the last few years.
2. Leadership contest run at party conference a la Tories.
3. New leader says election will be April 22nd – earlier election would be bad for democracy due to low turnout caused by weather.
4. 6 months of Labour trying to find a narrative to whittle down the Tory lead. They’re going to need someone who can attack Cameron’s “Age of Austerity” who can point out that its only austerity for the working man as the well off will still get their IHT cut and pledge to drop the 50p etc etc
In all honesty it won’t do any good. I look at Cameron now and ask can he do any more damage to the country that Labour will have to do post election, and find myself struggling.
Brown shambles on Expenses reform.
Byers going for the jugular.& calling for “clarity” over Labour’s future.
The Polls could get worse for Labour if this escalates.
“The Government of the living dead”.
It seems to have resonance because it sums up what people see every night on the news.
I would be interested to hear from any Labour insiders as to the true picture of Labours view of Brown.
From the outside it looks very much like the fall of Berlin in 1945. A leader who is determind to take the country and his party to total destruction because he can’t see that he is the problem and there is lack of impetus to remove him.
I would also be interested if anyone has any predictors of turnout as it will need to be big for a landslide.
As a Labour man I can’t help but laugh. Brown’s attempt to unilaterally steamroller through half-baked reform plans for expenses was funny. Making it an issue of personal confidence was funnier. Doing so on Youtube was so nuts as to be hilarious.
If the game is up – and I still think there’s time for things to swing considering how volatile the polls are – then Labour should go for what they believe in. Which is why the budget was such a huge disappointment. £3bn to hit the child poverty target, to make it something very difficult for the Tories to scrap, would have been small change. Yet not a word was spoken of what had been a decade-long crusade.
@chris northwest
I agree. I think the mood of the country in general is showing definite signs that they want to give this government a proper kicking. Just listen to the tone of question time and other current affairs programs, interviews with the “man on the street”, talking to people in pubs and the almost universal disdain in the media.
1997’s figures are the best indicator of likely turnout at a GE I should think.
Brown in his bunker sums it up.
Weighted Moving Average still 43:28:19 though the CLead is now 16 up from 14 due to rounding (really 15.5 up from 14.4). It’s clear that the ICM Guardian Poll was cloud cuckoo land – the Retrospective error was -6.6. The WMA CLead is higherst since 25/9/08.
I still think it will get much worse for Labour and is terminal for Brown, but we will have to see. Events, dear boy ….
How will the swine flu play out. Is it a chance for him to be a man of action and show leadership like the bounce last year?
@Ian – that decade long crusade has got to have been the worst campaign in history. With the waste alone from other project (for example ID cards) labour could have (if it actually had the political will to do it) bought children out of poverty. Instead they looked at stats and trialed a few things and brought in a few partners and achieved little actual benefit to the many – sure some children did better, but many more were left with nothing. The thought that in this their final budget they could have put a political ruingfence around some money should have been the least they could do. I hope for all our sakes that the tories step up and actually take this cause and make it their own and I really do think that DC has the principles (at least in this area before anyone else argues) to do the right thing.
Do we really think that Labour can change leader yet again without calling a General Election?
I don’t….. If GB goes then Labour will have no authority to govern in my view and public pressure will force an election.
@M funny I was just discussing that and we are shocked that he is again missing this opportunity to act. He failed to act quickly in the gloucester floods and it appears he will be late to the party on this (WHO just increased the rating for the to level 4)
I suppose the biggest decider of the next election will be,
If your a non voter does the certain prospect of the countries finances in meltdown motivate you to vote.
More didn’t vote than voted for Labour last time, will that change due to the complete economic disaster we are headed to?
I think Labour have got to leave it as late as possible (Sep/Oct) and then go for a quick GE with a new fresh leader – the only options that might save a few seats are Alan Johnson or relative unknowns like Jon Cruddas or John Denham. Brown and Labour blew their chance of victory in 2007, what a mistake that is looking now.
The next mistake would be to install someone like Ed Balls or Jack Straw. Gordon Brown seems determined to destroy the Labour party – he has bullied his way to the top, ignoring members, so I doubt he will listen now. The only way to get rid is a bloody battle – are Labour MPs up for it? Surely with these poll figures they should be, but I have been saying that for a while now and still they are spineless.
Is this it for politics in Britain now?
Step 1: Vote in new party due to hatred of current government that has become too used to power.
Step 2: Re-elect new party as things seem to be going OK.
Step 3: Re-elect party again because, whilst thing’s are starting to look bad, this lot can’t be worse than the previous party we voted out in step 1.
Step 4: Realise that the incumbant party are a bunch of corrupt, incompetent career politicians who are so full of hubris they deserve to be publicly humiliated by a crushing defeat in the polls.
Step 5: See Step 1.
Stuart Gregory,
You say the swing is 8.9%. ?
How do you justify that please but then I am not an expert – just a poll watcher addict!
I thought it was nearer 11% but what figures do you use? I thought at the last election it was 35 – 32?
Or do I have to involve the Lib Dems?
in terms of the local elections in june, i think the labour party will do very baly in deed and could lose scores of county seats to he tories the key coutys to look out for are derbyshire if the tories take this labour cankiss th election good by, nottinghamshire could go to the tories with a medimum swing as there are lots of marginal seats in the central part of nottinghamshire, lancashire if the tories win this its over ad labour may not get over 200 seats at the 2010 polls, also to take into acount is that the likely hood is on the same day as the genral there could also be locals as well so another drubing is on the cards for that night so all to do for labour as there poll rating slumps more and more and more…………………………………
laz henson, i work on a monthly base with every poll for that month i.e every poll in april ect, ect.
This poll really does re-enforce a sense of “living dead” to this government; I honestly feel like it is 1996 all over again- and the longer the government hold off the G.E. the more unpopular they are getting as people simply want to vote for “change” or simply give them a kicking. Rightly or wrongly.
The Conservatives are now enjoying growing support in the North, Wales and even in Scotland they are getting above 20%- recently getting 21%, its our best performance in 15 years in a Scot poll. Still, only seeing 6 MPs from Scotland however- much more to be done by D.C in the outer regions (I mean outside midlands) if he wants to see a strong majority with a representative mandate for the whole of the country.
Stuart Gregory,
I can understand that but surely not good to include a result from 4th April – which appears to be bogey?
Thanks
Laz
i count no poll as a bogey, or to put it the same way as i did to a committee member last night “if it costs that much it cost that much i exspect to be paid” in polling tems that means if a poll say “A” has a 8pts lead but another poll say “A” has a 15pts lead the average of that is an 11.5% lead and thats that the average of all polls is the monthly average not just discarding polls beacuse there not wat we want them to say.
Ah! I see, an 8.9% swing on Aprils average polling. I was going to say, in agreement with Laz, that the swing for this poll is over 11% from the last election.
It’s all going swimmingly as far as I can see. Still got Byers to go in the media in coming days and hopefully, nearer the elections, Browns jowly mumbling and overexagerated fake smiling on TV to scare off a few more punters!
I realise how partisan I sound but I will say one thing for Labour, they’re good for a laugh.
It does remind of the last 2-3 years of the last Conservative government doesn’t it? Or is it worse, since we are in a nasty recession and back then things were getting slowly and steadly better.
At the moment the government seems quite paralyzed – unable to take decisive action in case it upsets any of the small number who still believe in it.
That swing of Liberal to Conservative ought to worry many Liberal MPs right now- and can anyone tell me the swing average of labour to liberal? (given that the only way the liberals can avoid seeing their number halve they need to get labour hits)?
There’s a slight similarity to last year.
Slightly stronger opinion poll ratings at the start of the year for the government seemed particularly undone by the budget (or rather the previous year’s budget in force).
The only way, as has been said, that Labour can avoid a total disaster come election night is (and I say it with disappointment as a Labour supporter) to get rid of Gordon. get someone like Alan Johnson in charge and then call the election right away. I am sad that Gordon Brown doesn’t seem to realise that he is not appealing to people and many good MP’s will lose their seats. That’s the saddest thing, due to his decisions etc, many able MP’s who really care about Labour and really want to make a difference to the lives of their constituents are likely to lose their jobs, that’s what upsets me. A year ago I supported GB during those bad summer polls, this time I wont and I am sure many Labour supporters feel the same. I can’t see the polls improving, and clearly the public aren’t happy. It wasn’t meant to end like this for Labour….
Jack, I’d suggest former foreign affairs sec. Jak Straw- he’s the most popular replacement for Brown apparently (from opinion polls a long while back I think)- even so, he only managed 24%
Labour’s best chance may be to pick a new Labour and immediately go for an election to capitalise on what would surely be an extremely short honeymoon period. But no-one has the guts to oust Brown, and he himself is intent on fighting the next election which he alone believes he can win.
Jack R.
What the hell are you talking about? It always ends like this for Labour.
Has it not occurred to you that none of the real pretenders want to assume to the thrown only to lose a General Election. Much more likely is that Straw or Harperson will be allowed to lead the party to defeat, prior to a lurch to the left taking place and Labour becoming unelectable for another two decades.
Jack R
I don’t see a Labour way out of this. The amount of debt that Gordon has run up can only be reversed with major pain.
If you turn around to all of the electorate that have believed in Labour through the last 12 year and inflict “Tory Cuts” on them then you would be toast for eternity.
Labour needs a period of oposition blaming the nasty tory’s for cutting services. Once the Tory’s are hated for the pain as in the 80’s then you may have a chance again. Although this could easly be counter with Labour Government give the British economy Cancer but the Tory’s are blaimed for administering Chemo.
There is also a problem with this as the Labour Government ’s alway run out money is a major hit as it is back up by history.
We are in for interesting times.
Chris Northwest,
I fear you are correct. There will always be the next inexperienced, ignorant younger generation prepared to give Labour a go. The five year olds of today who in 13 years will be ready to vote and who have only ever known a Tory government.
And whilst they can read the history of all the Labour borrowing/spending/debt disasters over the decades, they havent actually *experienced* it. And just in time to ensure we dont ever truly get ahead as a nation, in Labour will come to once again build up crippling, generation destroying debts.
Its really up to the 20-35 year olds of today to educate their children Re: Labour. But then we all think we know better than our parents at 18 so who knows how effective that would be.
The June elections will be bad but that’s not the end of it. In July MPs’ detailed expenses get published. That could be far worse. The papers are already dropping hints of what we can expect to read about – holiday homes put on expenses, 4 TVs bought and charged within 4 years – and many MPs are believed to be fearing for their jobs. If ministers are involved, which is likely, that could be catastrophic.
They probably should get rid of Brown but the problem is if they changed leader twice within a term, the pressure from the media and the public to call an election would be huge. They have no legal obligation to call one but they’d be an enormously unpopular government running with a second “unelected” leader. They would either have to call one, knowing they’d lose, or risk growing even more hated and facing a bigger wipeout next Spring.
“@M funny I was just discussing that and we are shocked that he is again missing this opportunity to act. He failed to act quickly in the gloucester floods and it appears he will be late to the party on this (WHO just increased the rating for the to level 4)”
Well, maybe its actually a good thing he is not trying to take advantage. I mean honestly, everything he touches at the moment seems to end in disaster. I have only just now heard his comment that led to the supposed snub in Pakistan. And well, I think *that* comment was an attempt for him to sound statesman like and like a brave strong leader and look what happened.
“Im here in the crucible of terror.” LOL. I mean honestly. “Im here”??? Talk about trying to sound like a hero.
@Jack R “It wasn’t meant to end like this for Labour….”
What do you mean?
If you look at the history books, every Labour government since Ramsey McDonald in 1931 has ended because of financial mayhem.
This one is following the script to the letter.
Cliff is right, Healy, Wilson, Callaghan- there was a reason people rather voted tory for 18 continual years- they couldnt trust labour. By 1997 they felt they had to vote for someone else, and all of our worst fears have been realised.
When John Major took the country to the stump in 1992 he said “we must avoid the ultimate disaster of a labour goverrnment”- I believe that after 2010 that sentiment shall return with a vengence.
The only difference this time is an unelected labour party could be replaced by a less toxic centre-left and now well established liberal democrat party on the left- indeed they almost did it in 1983 when they as a party were a lot less established and financially sound- just imagine what mightt happen now in the race to be the next con governments opposition
dean thomason-
labour to lib dem is only 1.8% swing in the lib dems favor so no labour MP with a majority over 3.6% is a risk from the dems at this time so only a few seats hear and there mostly i’d say in the north, but NC’s sheffield hallam seat will take a pounding on current polling and his majority may be cut to just 5.2% or 2340 with labour a distance third. as for my own area leicestershire, the north west of the county will go blue for sure i have family who live up there and when they had the locals in 2007 the tail i got was that labour got kicked out through incompadance and not doing anything for the district and its still very much that way now apart from the BNP aking a good showing in some seats. in the rest of the county rutland and melton which is my own area will stay and get much more blue as melton town area gose blue instead of red and yellow, in leicester the picture is much diffrant as labour are still very dominant hear and wil only lose a few votes, the key is leicester south and a good showing ells where will do the tories favors, the EU elections will be the one to whatch and the break down of results will show if leicester is turning and finally on to the very marginal loughborugh it will go blue
Channelling Chris Newey – I’m optimistic. We’ve got the Tories on the hop. Cameron must be a scared man today
The Petition to Brown to Resign is now #6 in terms of no of signatures, and will soon be #1. If this gets to over 1M people Brown would be under serious pressure – 5-10M and I think it would be irresistable.
Interestingly if i was brown i would prefer to lead the party to defeat in 2010 than to resign before the election. if you look at John major he recieved far more praise and respect for the way he behaved in defeat and is generally seen as an honest man.
That could be Browns Legacy that he honrably lead his party even though he couldn’t win.
Labour are going to lurch to the left with their next leader i wouldn’t bet against a John McDonNell leadership in 2010
@onthejob – “Labour are going to lurch to the left with their next leader i wouldn’t bet against a John McDonNell leadership in 2010″
If Labour lurch that far leftwards they can forget the 2014/15 election.
However a temporary lurch to the left is probably inevitable if there’s a Consersvative landslide that wipes out most of the Blairites.
i Don’t Disagree Cliff. you only need to look at at Labour Home and these people honestly believe that becoming far more left wing is the answer. I think it will be a two term Conservative Government if the tories pull it off. (nothing in the bag could still lose blah blah blah)
you would think that aprties would learn Michael Foot Anahilated wiliam hague destroyed. Got to stay in the Centre.
The voters clearly reject the notion that the money has all been gambled away by capitalism-gone-mad, and appear to believe that it’s all been spent on one-legged dance troupes and wages for the feckless.
Who am i to argue otherwise?
I just don’t remember the events of the seventies that lead the erudite analysts here to say “it always ends this way for Labour” Where were the rampant free-market capitalists then, unless you count David Bowie?
The fact is that when the cashiers called time, the talented, entrepreneurial wealth-creators were shown up as losers.
New Labour’s mistake was to cosy up to these people, scared that they might dodge tax and flee to Switzerland if they didn’t. As if they would!
I agree that lurching to the left of centre would be a mistake, but it’s daft to say this has been caused by leftist policies. Tax is lower than under Thatcher. A lurch to the left would still leave New Labour to the right of many in the Tory Party.
JohnTT
Do you really think that Brown’s lack of popularity is because the voters have pinned the “blame” for the recession on the wrong man?
Do you not recognise that Brown himself is a problem-recession or no recession?
Do you not agree that Brown’s propensity to deny any responsibility for the UK banking crisis is a factor in his current plight?
And do you not remember the long periods of Tory Poll leads during Brown’s premiership which pre-dated the recession?-what was the reason for them?
And is Stephen Byers blaming the public for incorrect analysis? No he is blaming Brown.
For me the whole Labour philosophy is epitomised in Ms Harman’s “Equality Bill”.
Presented to a depressed & resentfull public in the middle of a recession, with Labour bombing in the Polls , Harriet’s answer?……
…..Yet another Top Down, centralised edict to construct the New Jerusalem by statutory enforcement , “Policed” by yet another “Inspectorate” of highly paid , highly pensioned jobsworths foisted on the taxpayer.
M
the “next inexperienced, ignorant younger generation”
ius exactly who you are hoping will listen to you.
Nothing you write suggests you’re anything other than completely blinkered. If the tories campaign saying “We were right alll along, the electorate should not have voted Labour in 1997″, then wouldn’t most “polder”, experienced people feel a bit uncomfortable?
Unfortunately for us all, I think there’s a lot more gullibility around that allow bone-headed, self-righteous banging onto prevail over factual analysis.
Colin –
No, I was having a pop at the knuckle-headed approach of the blinkered, and I would never “blame the electorate”.
The Icelandic electorate have just given their verdict, and voted out the (center-right) incumbents.
I’ve no doubt the electorate reasonably attach blame to Brown for the recession, but it’s because he failed to hobble the free-market bankers as they burned all our money, not because he allowed =trade unionism to rule the roost.
It’s plain wrong to lump the failures of industrially-decaying 1970’s Britain in the same category.
Do you remember who Lawson, Lamont, and co blamed for the bust of the late eighties/early nineties? It was us. They held the people responsible for over-stretching themselves. At least Brown isn’t blaming the electorate, or coming out with crass remarks like “get on your bike”
the whole Labour philosophy is epitomised in Ms Harman’s “Equality Bill”.
Exactly! They think it should not be “left to the market” to decide whether women get paid on the same basis as men! After all the market has had 40 years to self-correct. Do you think it’s right that men should get more than women because they are men?
John TT
Brown comes out with “crass remarks” like “British jobs for British workers”, which the BNP have taken over to use for their campaign. Will you hold the sub-Prime Minister to account for this idiocy if the BNP win seats in the European Parliament? You should.
The Grauniad appears to be fielding Harriet Harman as its preferred successor to Brown. If it gets its way, that’s Labour consigned to the opposition for the duration of her reign.
i suspect Labour will go through what the Tories went through pre-2005 – a succession of lacklustre leaders, none of whom have a cat in hell’s chance of winning an election, until eventually someone comes up through the ranks and puts Labour back in the game.
Brown’s legacy will be dire, not “honourable”. He’ll be remembered with loathing and contempt by many, and as the man who sealed Labour’s fate by many more. He’s been a disaster. I can’t think of any mainstream politician I’ve disliked and despised more and I know I’m not alone in that.
“They held the people responsible for over-stretching themselves.”
And are “the people” blameless now?
Are they not to be criticised when taking on debt they could not afford to repay?
Why is personal responsibility so beyond “the people” ?
If the cabinet had any courage, they would lock Brown in his office with the proverbial glass of whisky and loaded revolver, and declare Jack Straw leader with a specific timetable for an autumn election.
Straw should make it clear that he is a caretaker until after the inevitable defeat, with a view to Labour holding a leadership election in spring – ideally announcing new leader in time for the local elections next May.
Any pretence that Labour can somehow pull it around and Brown should soldier on is an insult to the country and would result in a far worse defeat in 2010.
The idea that Labour could hold a leadership election before going to the country is now a non-starter, and is neither in the interest of the country or the Labour party.
Sadly, I fear that Labour lack the courage to force Brown out, and he is so deluded he will simply hang on until dragged out of Downing St. So we are condemned to another year of drift and disaster.
@John TT
“Do you think it’s right that men should get more than women because they are men?”
Of course not. But Harman’s view on equality is that you should employ the woman on the grounds that she is a woman, if two candidates are similar (my dictionary must have a funny definition of equality).
Most women I know would be disgusted to think they’d been given a job simply because they are a woman.
Back on polls – well, what is there to say. Barely 1 in 4 people support the current government.
When a bank decides to authorise its employees to gamble hundreds of billions of pounds away.
The “people”? Which ones? The British, or the Americans? Sure, it was a mistake to sign up to a mortgage without any job or capital, but , ok a very Labour idea, they were Mis-Sold. Like the endowment policies in the eighties.
Is it beyond reason to expect corporate responsibility, rather than blaming the customers when the wheels fall off?
Cynosarges – the context of that remark makes it clear he was not on about protectionism, but about wealth-creation, but you seem to be agreeing that bonkers interpretations seem to have an unfortunate effect on people’s voting intentions.
John TT
The NINJA mortgages in the US were handed out by the banks in response to Government action (Clinton policy). Since many of these were then either assigned to Freddie-Mac / Fannie-Mae or bundled up into CDOs, the Banks thought that they had passed on the risks they did not wish to take in the first place. There was also an assumption that the government would support those who fell behind with their payments on mortgages they were encouraged to take by the government.
Who was mis-sold here ? The poor for taking on debts they could not afford, or the banks for following the government’s guidelines ? Both perhaps ?
Just goes to show that you can’t trust the government !
John TT,
Problem is that I, and many others like me, just don’t see all this ‘inequality’ in the workplace.
Girls and boys all get paid the same rates where I work as I know they do in the public sector also. In fact the public sector employs a great deal more of the former.
If you take a year off to have a kid and work part time for a while, sure, your gonna be a bit lower down the pay scales, so what?
You can’t make what’s not equal into equal. It’s not logical. Maybe if Labour did something about all the fathers who abandon their spouse and kids soon after baby arrives I’d give my backing.
But they wont because they don’t believe in all that horrid two parent ‘family’ stuff do they?
No morality. Just sticking plasters to solve problems their own class/gender wars have created in the first place.
Nothing to do with the economy it’s everything they stand for that I dislike. Many seem to agree with me too according to the polls.
True, Paul. The ninja borrowers were the only ones left.
If it hadn’t gone pop, the next in line would have been domestic pets, taking out mortgages on their baskets and kennels.
All the fault of Tiddles and Thumper.
Ivan – as far as I know, it’s the lack of transparency that’s being addressed. If there are good reasons why Mrs gets less than Mr, then fine. Transparency will lead to fewer unfair discrepancies, not undeserved equality.
‘the whole Labour philosophy is epitomised in Ms Harman’s “Equality Bill”.
Exactly! They think it should not be “left to the market” to decide whether women get paid on the same basis as men! After all the market has had 40 years to self-correct. Do you think it’s right that men should get more than women because they are men?
‘….
Of course men and women should get equal pay for equal work-but the slack argument pointing out that overall men and women earn different amounts does not reflect the oversupply of women in low paid professions (where the men in those jobs also earn low pay) and the fact that more women take time off work for childcare reasons, and, as such, have less experience.
Solve all this paperwork Labour nonsense and just pass a simple law of ‘equal pay for equal jobs’ and any company not so doing gets fined 10% or so of gross turnover which then goes to the person who was not paid the right amount. That would stop all the nonsense and get the result quickly.
@John TT
“the context of that remark makes it clear he was not on about protectionism, but about wealth-creation”
I would accept that defence if Labour had not intentionally misrepresented Boris Johnson’s comment on a Tony Blair visit to Africa to claim that Johnson is racist. Labour demonstrated that they considered it acceptable politics to misuse quotes out of comment as a political tactic, and now you are crying “unfair” when the BNP turns the same tactic on you. If Labour chooses to occupy the gutter, then it shouldn’t complain if it gets covered in slime.
Your party chose to intentionally use a “bonkers interpretation” to smear a politician, and now you cry foul when you are on the receiving end. Double standards.
So returning to my question, Will you hold the sub-Prime Minister to account for his idiocy if the BNP win seats in the European Parliament?
I’m pretty sure that we already have legislation supporting equal pay for equal work, and have had it for quite a while.
Am I missing something here?
Jack – there is such a law, but it doesn’t work because of a lack of transparency. How can the woman I sit next to report the company we work for if she doesn’t know I get more than her?
Paperwork Labour nonsense? That reminds me of the argument that all public services should be scrapped, apart from the armed forces, police and judiciary. The paperwork has to be done by some-one – you can be sure the “office of budget responsibility” will be staffed by pen-pushers filling in forms all day long if Cameron gets in and creates it.
Your party chose to intentionally use …
It’s noT “my party”, and of course I’m consistently against mis-quoting , and abhor “spin”. We’re all a bit selective in use of “evidence”, that’s fair enough, but accusing Johnson of racism is just as bad as accusing Brown of protectionism.
So no, if the BNP gets a seat that will be a failure of the other parties to put a convincing argument against them.
The thing that I just can’t get my head around is: WHY would Brown WANT to win the next election? Surely it must be obvious to him that even if by some miracle (or the opposite of a miracle) Brown pulled something massive out of the hat and managed to hoodwink the voters (again), surely even he now realises that another 5 years in power would be a gutwrenchingly awful experience? How could we all, how could the country; indeed how could even the LABOUR PARTY stand such a thing? It’s a really unbearable prospect.
Given that, WHY bother continuing until May/June 2010? It really will be a horrible experience to be a labour minister/MP/activist over the coming 12 months. It’s quite difficult to see how they could now doubt that forecast. Why prolong the agony? Every month that passes will inflict more, greater and deeper LONG-TERM damage on the labour party. By 2010 they may well be utterly despised. Let’s be clear, it’s already going to take a LONG time for the party to come back from this calamity – but over the next 12 months, they could very well make that much worse.
Conservative MP in Chorley? Could happen……
If the BNP gets a seat, it will be the result of Labour’s failure over a decade to heed majority opinion on immigration levels.
Brett – the reason is what some on this thread would call “scorched earth”. The 50p tax rate will be difficult to avoid. I can imagine other left of centre policies being offered up in order to dare the conservatives to repeal them.
Having said that, if Darling is correct about growth figures (and everyone else is wrong), then who knows what the voters will make of it all?
“if Darling is correct about growth figures”
And we all thought the Oracle had fanciful predictions
@James Ludlow
I am afraid I disagree with your reasoning on the BNP getting representation. The current (and preceding) governments must take the blame for lack of real debate over the benefits and downsides of immigration but I find all parties still far to xenophobic in their comments.
I am a conservative voter but am also a believer in more not less immigration (this is not he place to discuss the rights and wrongs on that issue).
The BNP get votes because the main parties refuse to engage them in legitimate debate and expose the majority of BNP representatives as the racists they are. By ignoring the BNP with a side comment as a bunch of racists without open debate allows them to get a much better showing than the true reflection of voters opinions on their policies.
I think there is a way for the Tories to repeal the 50p tax rate and not be seen to be favouring their natural constituency. Under Gordon Brown as Chancellor, the UK’s tax code was so mangled and made so complicated that it would be easy to argue that the whole thing should be torn up and a totally new tax code created.
If I were Chancellor following a 2010 GE, I’d raise the personal allowance to a level that is equal to 1.25 times the minimum wage of a person over 21 working 40 hours per week. I’d then abolish tax credits because they’re an expensive and complicated method of assisting the low paid. With a much larger personal allowance, far fewer people would need help anyway. But part of this solution would be to raise the standard rate of income tax to a point that ensured that all those on £30,000 a year or less were better off and those earning more were slightly worse off. (There’s a need to raise taxes overall.) Drastic cuts could be made to benefits payments, without too much harm to the poor. That would leave health and education unaffected by cuts.
I think that there is a need to cut government expenditure by at least £100bn in the first year, with expenditure restored over the next three years. I think that the country can afford nothing else, unless we’re going to make the standard rate of income tax 50p and VAT 30%.
I wonder, will a Tory government be brave enough to accept that cuts have to be made and that these cuts have to be severe?
“Is it beyond reason to expect corporate responsibility, rather than blaming the customers when the wheels fall off?”
It probably is john!!
I agree entirely with you about corporate responsibility.
I am in favour of a law to allocate criminal responsibility to corporations as well as individuals.
I would like to see a much harsher treatment of the UK bankers who brought us to this-they should be led away in handcuffs to goal as they are in US. Yes the Banking market failed there too-but by god they have made them pay-the public humiliation of the CEOs of the big three car companies was another example for us.
We are weak & lilly livered with these people-they should be hammered.
Why should the customers be blamed?-because some of them ran up ( still run up) massive credit card debts to pay for consumer goods they could not afford-yes credit was cheap-yes it came through their letter box every day-like through mine-but they did not have to take on unsustainable debt.
…because some of them bought houses they could not afford-some of them bought houses they didn’t need to rent out. Just because some spive in a “mortgage brokers “office pushes money at you unrelated to your income-or even lack of income-you don’t have to take it.It has to be repaid.
So-yes the exploitative bankers & money pushers should be punished severely.
And their “customers” must take the blame for their fecklessness-and pay back their loans….I don’t want to be burdened with them…I didn’t take them out.
“if Darling is correct about growth figures”
And we all thought the Oracle had fanciful predictions ”
I’m not sure I deserve to be mentioned in the same post as the Oracle – perhaps you are comparing Darling with the Oracle?
What was so irritating about The Oracle was that he was occasionally spot on with his predictions
“I’d then abolish tax credits because they’re an expensive and complicated method of assisting the low paid. With a much larger personal allowance, far fewer people would need help anyway”
Some Tax Credits have played an absolutely vital role in providing financial viability to families where the opportunity to work is restricted, but the desire to do so is considerable.
It is only Working Tax Credit , for example, that seperates a disabled lone parent with two school age children, who can only find & carry out work for limited hours per week , from penury-or constant parental support.
Increased Personal Tax Allowances are no help to such a family.
Who is impersonating Colin?
Scorched earth policy??
Surely you can’t be saying that Gordon Brown DOESN’T have a moral compass?????
Where is the “Oracle” these days? has he been banned?
Brett – he lost it at the bottom of a think tank.
Well we are feisty this morning.
There was some discussion of sub-prime and the Clinton administration’s policy to push lenders to lend to sub-prime borrowers. If anyone here saw Niall Ferguson’s series on the Ascent of Money they will have seen that when Fannie Mae (I think) was created in the 1930’s it split the US into black and white areas and only underwrote mortgages in the white areas and effectively created prime and sub-prime. Quite jaw dropping really. Rightly, in my view, the Clinton administration tried to do something about this – pity they did it in the middle of a financial mania.
But lets face facts. With all the easy money floating around (created by the Central banks and government policy) the spivs would have found something else if sub-prime hadn’t been available. The problem is the deadly combination of spivs, a crazy, short-termist bonus system and easy money.
Back to the polls.
I’ve been saying all year that Labour needed to use the G20 and budget as a springboard to a June 2009 GE. IMO, it was their last, best chance. What a mess they’ve made of it and the mood seems to have moved decisively against them. What can save them? The only thing I can see, in the short term, is that we end up with a flu epidemic and all the elections are cancelled. I’d hate to see it for many reasons, not least because Labour deserve their roasting at polls.
Charles Stuart – I think you are thinking on the right lines. A wholesale restructuring of tax and benefits to make it fairer and simpler is long overdue. Failure to do this is one of Brown’s strategic errors which he shares with the previous 18 year Tory government. It is quite astonishing that if you work more than around 20 hours per week on minimum wages you pay both income tax and NI.
I would throw in another simple reform. Abolish the upper earnings limit on NI contributions and caculate a flat rate paid by everyone on all income over the bottom threshold. Ensure the new rate is tax neutral, so it raises as much as we get now, but it would work out as a tax cut for everyone under around £60 – 70K with a rise above that, but in a totally transparent and fair way.
To date only the LD’s have begun to start thinking about rebalancing the tax system with the £10k allowance.
“Who is impersonating Colin?”
No one Neil.
The WTC circumstances I describe are intimately known to me…so they inform my view of politics.
What is strange about that?
JOHN TT-
i don’t know about an election this year i’ve seen no sign of it, if an GE election was being held this year i would have ad the locations of ballot boxs in by now and how many there will be, and i’ve had no sign of that yet so not looking good for this year, and in 2007 when we all thorught that gord would call an election he had put every thing in place, the polling station data came out location and number of ballots boxs per station and just before to go sign was pu up he changed his mind he will do the same again and lose big if he dose i do not think labour will get back in in one election it will be more like 3 or 4 elections, and i would not rule out a lib dem govenment with the (right) leader thay can go a long way but NC is rubbish killer vince would have done a better job.
where is the orical got to not see nothing of him?
if the tories win power which baring a merical labour they will (swine flu anyone) i would like to see two things
1. a cut in corpration tax of 2p
2. a cut in income tax of 2p and the scrapping of the govenments planed 2011 0.5p rise in income tax
the other things that if labour get back in unlikely i know would be (no tax rises) and a rise in the back pay to £6.10 per hr as soon as they win the election
so a lot to do
any ideas of why my comment is being moderated again?
My personal view is in support of Friedman’s “negative income tax” system, where welfare and taxation are processed at the same time. Sadly no-one is radical enough to propose that as it eliminates targetted welfare, even though it completely eliminates the damaging welfare trap.
e.g. Colin, in your example I suspect the parent is in a situation where, should both time and opportunity for more working hours arise, she would lose her WTC and end up worse off.
Alec – if you mess with the tax system, you can never win because you will always create more (very loud) losers than winners, whatever you do.
I’m all for simplification, but replacement of the tax credit system with a 10K threshold would make losers of the very people you appear to want to help – those earning between £10k and £20k.
The biggest winners will all be the wealthiest.
If Cameron suggests such a move, he’ll have to face the losers. I can’t see it happening.
There’s something very strange about attitudes to “supertax”. If say as many as 20% of us actually realised our aspiration to earn £150k (and therefore feel vicariously clobberred now), what on earth would happen to inflation? We’d be blessed with 6m millionaires.
I agree with Mark M’s intention – to eliminate the welfare trap. It’s that that has produced targetting.
” Colin, in your example I suspect the parent is in a situation where, should both time and opportunity for more working hours arise, she would lose her WTC and end up worse off.”
Yes MARK M-precisely.
Very bad poll for us, however I still expect a recovery in the next couple of weeks once the dust settles – not totally suprising remember this was during a fortnight of terrible headlines over smear and the right-wing take on the budget so it could have been worse.
I’ll be very concerned if we get consistent polls like last summer.
The Cons must wondering what the hell they’ve done to deserve this, i’m certainly very confused.
There’s quite a bit of talk of the last days of Major – could there also be valid comparisons with the 87-92 Tory government? (Change of visionary leader mid-term, going the full five years, gazing into the economic abyss, etc). I’m not trying to clutch at straws and I’ve read the brilliant article about bounce-/claw-backs (and Kinnock ain’t no Cameron) but I wonder if there is still the possibility of the Tories falling at the last fence?
Personally, I think that this is probably the only real hope for Labour – a brilliantly choreographed election campaign and a Tory slip. Whaddya think?
He should get a soapbox!
Clearly with the comments of this morning you are all bored waiting for the next polls!
Question – Any help by you mathematicians please?
If in 2005 the election took place between Labour and Tory only and Labour scored 57.5% and Tory 42.5% what would be the result today based on the last poll if the Lib Dems also field a candidate.
Answer not to account for local issues, strength of candidate etc etc. just on last poll?
Many thanks
Laz
Osbak,
The key difference between 92 and 97 was that in 92 the Tories still had a reputation for economic competence and Labour didn’t. After Black Wednesday that all changed. You can’t compare what’s happening now with 92.
OSBAK- I think it’s too late for choreography-the audience appear to want a different performance with a different cast.
A Tory slip however-that is a distinct possibility.
John TT – understand your point, but I wasn’t specifically saying lest have a £10K threshold. Its the idea of really tackling the benefits trap that everyone should be focussed on, not the issues of the richest 1%, who to be frank, haven’t covered themselves in glory recently.
Another interesting idea was floated by the Green Party in 1983. They proposed a cash allowance paid to every UK adult, regardless of circumstances or earnings. I recall it equated to basic benefit levels. Tax at varying rates would start on every £ of earned income above this, but with a shift from income tax and NI to resource taxes to encourage environmental efficiency while promoting greater employment.
It’s radical, would never happen, and I’ve no idea if it would work, but one of my abiding frustrations about UK politics is just how unimaginitive all main parties are. Not since 1047 have we had a government prepared to find totally new ways to organise society, and we’re the poorer for it.
Haven’t read through all the comments, but seeing a large amount of obvious bias in them again.
FYI The Brown resign poll is exaggerated, b/tards are fixing it in the same way they did here:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/milo_yiannopoulos/blog/2009/04/27/the_time_100_is_a_joke_literally
Although people probably stopped taking those things literally after PM Clarkson.
Looks like Labour are gonna get screwed at the locals, personally doubt it’ll be as bad for them in europe. Maybe comment more later if I have time.
Er – sorry. That should have been 1947.
Can I just point out that there is a difference between Labour and New Labour. Namely that New Labour, what is in power now, is virtually the same as the Conservatives.
“If David Cameron is elected then he will be the first Conservative Prime Minister since Tony Blair.”
JOHN TT – I am sure that the Oracle is well and monitoring the progress of his predictions. They seem to coming true ! A lot of the interesting contributors are no longer seen on here.
John TT,
The problem with “supertax” is that it is clearly motivated by envy and not economics. Envy – lest you forget – is one of the seven deadly sins alongside avarice and sloth.
What on earth makes you think that someone earning £150k is a millionaire ? Or have you changed the definition ? Even if it were tax free and one had no living costs to pay, so could save every penny, it would still take at least six years to accumulate a million, and more than ten to make two million.
The vast majority of Britain’s paper millionaires are living in the bulk of their estate, and have only acquired this distinction thanks to the ridiculous house price inflation of the past decade – itself a direct consequence of Brown’s lax monetary/fiscal policy combined with unrestrained immigration to force up housing demand.. The number of people who have accumulated £1m in disposable assets (i.e. assets other than their home) is relatively small, and many of these are actually asset rich / income poor. They do so in the hope of passing something on to their children – which is why IHT is iniquitous.
Personally, I agree with Alec and Charles Stuart that we need a radical restructuring of the Tax and benefits system. It also needs to be tied in with a new approach to savings and pension provision. However, that is not something that can be achieved overnight (perhaps not even in a single Parliament).
The best way to do this is to have extensive consultation and gain cross-party consensus on the basic structure, then to move towards phased implementation ovar an agreed period. Ideally, it should be done when the public fiannces are in good shape, and not from the depths of a debt fuelled recession. That way, the overall package could actually be revenue negative, with “losers” minimised, and presented as an overall tax cut as the country recovers.
A mammoth task to be started in 2010 – but perhaps to be presented to the electorate for implementation in 2014.
@Alec – I was very impressed that you researched all the way back to 1047 – you shouldn’t have corrected yourself
My point was clearly about inflation, and the strange notion that the parties should pander to unrealistic aspirations. £150k salary would result in the accumulation of £1m very quickly – I’d say 10 years would be fair – you’d have to be quite a shopaholic for it not to in that short time, and the result of even a few more of us realising that aspiration would be inflation.
Deciding policy on the basis of such unrealistic aspirations is strange.
Sounds like a big lie to cover the reality that the few with the most are greedy.
Like Lawson claiming reducing it to 40% would increase the yield. Of course it didn’t, but it eased the old conscience a little.
“The vast majority of Britain’s paper millionaires are living in the bulk of their estate, and have only acquired this distinction thanks to the ridiculous house price inflation of the past decade”
This is why I have previously suggested an asset tax, or wealth tax if you like. Much of the rise in fortunes for the wealthy is from unearned asset inflation and is moved around on paper to avoid tax. For example, replacing council tax with a fraction of a % on property values over a certain threshold would help close another tax that disproportionately hits the middle/lower earners.
Its really important for the more right leaning posters to appreciate that many of the ideas being floated here aren’t based on envy. Many people of all political persuasions feel that we have simply got the balance of tax wrong, with the lowest 10% paying the highest proportion of their income in tax, middle earners also suffering, while the wealthiest have the least burden in % terms. Equating income levels with workrate simply doesn’t wash, as many very poorly off work very hard. We tried trickle down economics and it didn’t work. It’s time to have a major rethink of tax and benefits, linked to a radical overhaul of how government spends the cash.
There is absolutely no way that someone on £150k could accumulate a sum of £1m in ten years. This would require saving 2/rds of one’s *gross* income each year, which given that more than 1/3rd goes in tax means it can’t be done even before you start spending money. Take a £3k a month mortgage into account, and even without lavish holidays or anything like that, you’d do very well to save £30k in a year.
Not penury certainly, but hardly a millionaire lifestyle.
Leslie – I was assuming annual increases, bonuses, asset appreciation, etc, but , to re-iterate my point, why on earth devise policies based on un-achievable aspirations? What proportion of the workforce are we realistically expecting to join the top 2%?
@Leslie
1/3 of 150 in tax leaving 100 (or around 90 I think taking everything into account) let’s assume they have it particularly bad tax wise leaving 80. You’d do very well to save 30 per year, so minimum to live on is 50 yearly.
£50,000 is not a minimum, 50 grand is very very well off.
Some of the comments on here I can only assume originate from very wealthy individuals….if so, good for you…but…and I don’t want to sound like some sorta class warrior when I say this…..you really, really, need to consider that your position is a long way from representative.
Final income for 60% of households…and that’s households not individuals, is less than 25k pa…
For the case in point, 150k pa wouldn’t automatically get a mil in 10 years, although it’s probably possible with good investments, but anyone with any financial nouse at all earning that much could end up a millionaire eventually if they save instead of spend. Of course….Brown probably doesn’t want them to save, bad for the economy…
Alec,
Although I agree in principle with taxing based on % of assets (property), the trouble with this one is that if you buy a property and it rises in value, where does the extra money come from? What about retired people living in £500,000 houses, who’ve had them for years, but don’t want to move? When times are good, can they go to the bank and borrow the tax? When time are bad (like now), does the tax go down? Does someone have to value the house each year? What is a fair value?
This needs thinking through properly. I’m not saying you’re wrong, if it is implemented someone needs to think about this properly.
@John T T – Sorry John, but as the Top 2% will always be 2%, it will always be 2%
– I think you need to qualify a value and not a percentage
John TT and Wood,
It’s not about whether £50 or 150 grand a year is “very very well off” or not. It’s about aspiration and ‘reward’ leading to a better world for us all on the backs of amazing minds.
Sure I’m jealous/angry that some reality TV star or thick banker gets rich while I do not but to build tax policy on such envy is madness.
If you want me to design and build rockets or conduct brain surgery or sell sand to Arabs then, after all the training i’ve undertaken, all the risks I’ve taken, all the long (in many careers very long) arduous hours of toil I’ve put in, I want a big house and a fancy car. End of.
Not a slightly bigger house than the council paper shuffler next door who clocks on and off 9-5, 6 weeks hols and zero stress. A much, much bigger house.
…and a maid…and a swimming pool …and so on.
All of mankinds technological and social progress in the last millenia was down to the great minds and deeds of the few, not of the many.
Fail to make those few feel sufficiently rewarded, hope that they will deliver purely out of the goodness of their hearts, and you will be dissappointed. The many will suffer in the end.
Indeed,against their own immediate gut instincts, most people realise this and the recent Labour budget has gone down poorly among voters.
Wood,
The point, which I think John TT accepts, is that the accumulation of wealth is much easier if you have asset price inflation. But it is not a win-win situation since eventually we all pay through a devalued currency.
The people who bought a three-bed semi in suburbia for £60k in the 1980s and are now sitting on £500k of equity were not financially astute, just lucky.
Even after the benefit of a university education, their children – or grandchildren – will struggle to finance a one-bed flat.
I don’t know which part of the country you live in, but I assure you down here in the smoke £50k does not feel well-off. It does not even get you into a starter home if you haven’t got parental support or can persuade a bank to give you a high-multiple mortgage – which is the root cause of the current financial problems.
@Chris – “i’m certainly very confused.” – you’re in a diminishing group, I believe GB and AD are in it, so you’re keeping good company.
Kier,
“the Top 2% will always be 2%”
Not in the wonderful world of new Labour it isn’t. We had a fascinating discussion with the audit commission at a recent council meeting where they tried to explain to me that because we only had 54% of our PIs above average we were in the bottom quartile since the majority of councils had more than a third in the top quartile.
Seriously !
Keir – of course the top two percent would expand as they were joined above £150k by those of us who aspire to join them, whether we do so through luck, geniuis, endeavour.
Wealth accumulation, as Paul points out more succinctly than I, is easier if you already have some; you don’t have to work so hard once a chunk is in place;it works for you then; it becomes easier and easier to grow it without effort or genius as it accumulates,
There’s nothing I object to in that (though I would tax it more as it’s inherited). What I object to is the idea that we’re all somehow going to swell the ranks of the extremely well off, and therefore have an interest in keeping that section’s tax low enough for us not to feel unfairly treated then.
I’m not envious, just puzzled as to why we all seem to buy the idea that great wealth needs to be protected from tax, because it’s within our reach as well as in the (often hidden) accounts of the top 2%
lol – yes the understanding of the word average and percentages is lost on some people. In many proposals I’ve seen, people use average as a measure of performance rather than acceptable. When challenged to define average of what they say words like best practice and industry standards without being able to refer to any data what so ever.
PS I can’t wait until I earn £150k per year so that 70% of it is taken away
It will be like passing my driving test and finding out I can’t afford the car or the petrol to run it – so why did I bother in the first place.
@John T T – no John you miss the point, the top 2% can’t expand unless we have a growth explosion. The people in the top 2% may change and the criteria may be different, but the top 2% will always be the top 2%
In terms of taxation I just can’t see the point in over taxing a productive wedge of the community for such little returns. How much for example does Richard Branson and his empire add to the economy each year. Do we wish him to work only in other countires and not support industry here.
Paul – I’m sure I could save 15k of a £50k salary over a couple of years in London. Flatshare Rents are £400 pcm in reasonable areas, and flats for purchase easily available around £180k. Check on Rightmove, it’s not as expensive in the smoke as is often portrayed
**********QUESTION **********
Does anyone know whether there are anymore polls due before the end of the month ? We normally get 2 ICM polls each month ?
@ Alec – “For example, replacing council tax with a fraction of a % on property values over a certain threshold would help close another tax that disproportionately hits the middle/lower earners.”
And would penalise people on low incomes who bought their homes decades ago in areas that subsequently became gentrified – eg half my neightbours.
Kier,
Agreed. But this was an audit report from the Audit Commission !
No wonder the country is in a mess.
the top 2% can’t expand unless we have a growth explosion
That’s my point exactly, Keir. So why do we as a population buy the theory that it’s there for us all. It’s the “aspiration” aspect that is strange. We cannot all enjoy, not even a reasonable minority of us, the benefit of low tax at the top end.
It’s OK to say leave them alone they deserve it, but to me, the argument seems to have been “leave them alone, we all aspire to join them”. And we can’t, for the reason you point out.
Therefore, it would be reasonable to say, as a non-participitating 98%, “let them enjoy their rewards to a certain extent, BUT don’t leave them alone, because we need to take at least a proportion of their accumulating wealth that they are not really earning, in order to help us pay for the services that we all deserve”
@John T T – “Paul – I’m sure I could save 15k of a £50k salary over a couple of years in London. Flatshare Rents are £400 pcm in reasonable areas, and flats for purchase easily available around £180k. Check on Rightmove, it’s not as expensive in the smoke as is often portrayed” – and where do I put my wife and 3 children or should I not have them if I can’t afford them? Sorry but that sounds a bit elitist for me.
Back to the polls anyone? So do we think the current polling gap will be maintained until the local and European elections? If so what does these mean in terms of councils won/lost, MEGT (members of the European Gravy Train)?
@David D, Onthejob & replies
Assuming, Labour fail to recover between now and the Euros and Council elections, and the summer poll dips to the very low 20s of percent, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if John McDonnell re-emerges… he seems to be waiting in the wings:
http://www.john4leader.org.uk/endorsements.html
(Millbandleson’ll love that!)
@James Ludlow, James TT etc..
I can’t see Harriet Harman beating John McDonnell… her whole agenda is Equality of Outcomes; not Equality of Opportunity… the whole “E&D” agenda seems to be along the lines of Immanentising the Eschaton – making reality conform to an academic paper of how things “should” be.
They seem to be frantically rushing these things in, because they sense the clock may be against them… there’s no clear economic sense in it – it’s just more pressure on time, money, and resources for small businesses when they least need it.
I reckon the mood is not simply against Brown, but “for” a complete purge of the “New Labourists”, and a return to ideology (at least a a more moderated form of what used to be Labour’s ID).
The tory vote’s gone up, but are these really going to be NewLabour voters switching; or just swapping places with abstaining Tory voters to become abstaining Labour voters?
You’d expect the LibDems to gain from Labour’s woes, yet, if anything, they’re doing slightly worse (at least recently).
@ CharlieJ – I’m not sure you’re right about engaging the BNP in debate. My suspicion is that engaging them in debate more often would increase the perception of them as just another party and thereby make it more acceptable to vote for them.
It seems to me – and this is based on a number of polls I’ve seen over the last few years – that most people are comfortable with a slow, steady level of immigration but hostile to the sort of massive influx we’ve seen in the last 10 years. You may want more but most people don’t.
James Ludlow
I may be an idealist but I hope that a debate on immigration would give people vent to their anger over most (but not mine) view that we have had too many but also highlight the irrational comments and policies by the BNP. I have no issues with people holding opposing views to me but I do have issues with those people not being able to express them and debate them in public. My feeling is that this drives those with the most extreme views underground and abl eto target the most vunerable in society to use them.
@CharlieJ – No I don’t think the lead will be maintained in the polls, but I do expect it to stay high. The polls would have to shift by a massive amount to make June anything more than a drubbing and political kicking for GB.
CharlieJ – totally agree with you about airing views in public. There’s no place in a democracy for silencing anyone’s opinion, no matter how extreme it may be, provided it isn’t accompanied by criminal acts. But that doesn’t mean that mainstream politicians have to debate with the BNP – there are plenty of other places and occasions where views can be expressed.
I’d prefer to see mainstream politicians engaging more with public opinion on immigration and acting upon it rather than filing it away under “wrong”. Immigration isn’t a conversation between the BNP and other parties. It should be a conversation between politicians and the public – with the politicians remembering who works for who.
Keir
I am sure this has been covered so sorry but what were the polls like around the comparable local and European elections last time?
I’d go for:
Con 36%
Lab 19%
Lib 17%
UKIP 4%
Green 6%
BNP 7%
SNP 5%
PC 3%
Libertas 1%
UKIP will collapse in London, but hold onto their leader; Libertas look set to pick their pockets more than the BNP, who probably won’t get enough in London, but may make ground.
Greens could pinch one off the LibDems in the South East (Brighton).
SouthWest split between Tory and LibDem and keep one UKipper.
East & East Mids might retain some kind of UKIP-esque presence.
West Mids, North West, & Workshire (amusing typo!) looks likely to deliver a BNP one each.
In fact Yorks: 3 tories, a lib, a labour, and a bnp is my guess as a native.
In general I would expect to see a lot more blue, red-white-and-blue (of various flavours), a dollop of gold, dash of green, and a lot less red on the map!
“Like Lawson claiming reducing it to 40% would increase the yield. Of course it didn’t, but it eased the old conscience a little.”
Many papers quoted that example after Darling’s Budget-all of whom referenced IFS figures showing that Lawsons take from highest incomes did increase.
Seems the sensible corollary of the obvious equation :-
Penal tax rates on top slices of income = tax avoidance measures, failing which no desire to earn the extra & give most of it to the Treasury.
CharlieJ
Polls – they will wobble around in terms of “lead”, but expect it to remain in double digits from now until the GE whenever it may be.
Local Elections –
“Good” for Labour will be to keep losses below 100 seats – but that represents 20% of the seats they are defending. More than 150 losses is bad, over 200 and we are in meltdown territory.
A more interetsing figure to watch is how well LDs do in retaining the seats they are defending against Con.
In terms of County Councils, Labour have four left to lose – expect them all to fall – the question being whether they go straight across to Tories or become NOC.
Euros – tricky due to combination of (a) awful results for both Lab and Con in 2004; (b) reduced turnout which means results may not be truly representative; and (c) reduction in seats means comparisons with 2004 are not like for like.
Key figures to look for are whether Lab share nationally falls below 20%, and how high Con share rises from the 26.7% in 2004.
Ivan –
“All of mankinds technological and social progress in the last millenia was down to the great minds and deeds of the few, not of the many.”
As a historian, I beg to differ. History is much more about conditions and circumstance rather than individuals. For example, societies with good education for all tend to produce greater outputs because the conditions are right. Those conditions are created by the many, but a few will stand out as being particularly successful. We tend to lionise a few individuals whose image remains in the collective memory, but every case of human achievement in any field involves many, many unsung heroes (and heroines) whose contribution is long forgotten.
The cult of the individual is not a new phenomena, but hurts our understanding of society. For example, in your case the “council paper shuffler next door” might just have saved you or your childs life by approving a 20mph speed limit outside your house. Who knows? Their name will never be in the history books.
CharlieJ,
I asked the same question some weeks ago only to find there is a poll archive in the right-hand side bar.
The answer is that if you look at either 1999 or 2004 the Euro election results bore no resemblance whatsoever to the national polls in either the months before or after those elections. In other words, no use as a guide to what might happen !
@James Ludlow,
…it’s a sure sign that you suspect the BNP might be saying something that people agree with if you want to exclude them – at least it makes it very easy for them to argue that.
The debate is then deflected from the actual issue you think the BNP are wrong about, and turns into a debate about free speech, and “free” is a very emotive word, and especially so if one side can argue that the other is “opposed to freedom”.
If, as I expect, the BNP get two or three MEPs, they’ll have to be engaged with – as will those who voted for them.
The assumption you’re making is that the BNP wants to debate with the mainstream parties …what do the BNP gain from that? They surely gain more by being pariahs? …and the more hysterical the criticism of the BNP, the more they have to gain.
You’re right that “remembering who works for who” is important here… to an extent the parties *have* to be where the voters are …the shift to this common ground, called “the centre” (the centre of what exactly?!), has left a lot of people where they were, and the BNP have filled the vacancy.
The other thing to remember is that the BNP makes a good value protest vote… it’s *safe* to vote for them in the Euros to stick a finger up at the establishment (you’d get a lot of attention to your local area all of a sudden I imagine), without having to have them run anything… but that doesn’t mean you should be complacent. The BNP have been slowly gaining tiny amounts of council seats, and building their reputation that way.
Essentially, it’s logically fallacious (slippery slope) to say that by including them you make people more likely to vote for them (like a “gateway drug” or something); it’s the issues they are addressing which is making people more likely to vote for them – they have more room to appeal to emotion that other parties do, and in the current climate, that should be taken seriously: ignoring them won’t make them go away.
Promsan,
You cannot seriously think that UKIP will drop to 4% nationally, do you?
Also, I would think that turnout would have to be exceptionally low before the SNP took 5% or PC took 3%.
UKIP should win 10% at least.
With regard to the BNP – I am astonished that people think it is acceptable to “exclude” them from the political scene. You may strongly disagree with their politics (I do too) but that is no reason to exclude them. I also strongly disagree with Labour’s politics, for example, and the Greens, and many other parties, but I don’t advocate that these parties should not be engaged with in reasoned debate, and effectively marginalised. (The Greens don’t do reasoned debate anyway, but that is a different matter). The whole idea is thoroughly undemocratic.
Maybe Promsan meant 14% for UKIP, that would be realistic.
@John TT
“I just don’t remember the events of the seventies that lead the erudite analysts here to say “it always ends this way for Labour” Where were the rampant free-market capitalists then, unless you count David Bowie?”
Totally besides the point. Labour ran 20 to 40 Billion deficits throughout the boom years. Which is economic madness. There are always recessions and during periods of growth the Government should be reducing its borrowing.
Secondly this was a boom that THEY stoked up further with their financial policies – specifically the housing boom. This boom gave Brown massive amounts of stamp duty which he blew on the state. This unsustainable boom was always going to come crashing down.
“I agree that lurching to the left of centre would be a mistake, but it’s daft to say this has been caused by leftist policies. Tax is lower than under Thatcher.”
I’m sorry this is partisan nonsense and not represent of the facts.
Taxation under Thatcher was much lower than it is under Brown. By the late 1980’s Thatcher had reduced the governments take of GDP to 40%. This year Brown will take almost 50%. And Brown is also projected (laughable Treasury prediction of course) to borrow 12.4% of GDP.
Increasing the government’s take to MORE than the 1975 Labour government is most definitely “leftist policies”. That policy led to a trip to the IMF in 1976.
Policies of taxing, borrowing and spending more than you can afford on the state are most definitely leftist policies. Every Labour government has pursued them and ended with the public finances in a mess.
These are the facts.
Incidentally, here is my (rough) prediction for the national shares of the vote:
Conservative: 37%
Labour: 18%
UKIP: 14%
Libdem: 13%
BNP: 8%
Green: 5%
Nats: 4%
Others: 1%
@Ivan@2:55
I agree with you up to the point where you say all progress….there are some (penicillin) advancements down to the work of 1/2 people, but most (plane, phone, web) are far more complex achievments.
I was really just pointing out that I think the figures Leslie suggested are unrealistic to a rather large degree.
@Paul@2:58
I agree (broadly, the issue of land pricing is more complex….we can make more cars, tvs etc, but there’s a finite amount of land, as the population grows it is going to get more expensive….especially as land lasts (kinda) forever, and an average tv will be useless in 20 years….) apart from your last para, IMO if you chose to live (or were born in) the richest part of the country, that doesn’t suddenly mean you’re poor if you’re not as rich as your neighbours….in terms of national govt (which is obviously what is mostly discussed round here) I think you should compare nationally, not locally…..in the same way I wouldn’t claim that I’m not rich compared to Indonesians just because I struggle to afford housing in the UK.
Neil,
Credible prediction for the Euros, though in my view LDs will be very disappointed if they do not edge ahead of UKIP. There are also so many “other” candidates / parties standing that they are likely to collect ively reach at least 2%, if not 3%, even if none of them register in any meaningful way.
@ Promsan and Neil – I don’t want to exclude the BNP. I don’t think I’ve expressed myself very well. What I want is for mainstream parties to listen to the public’s concerns on issues such as immigration and the EU instead of fencing them off as BNP territory and then refusing to listen to public opinion. The BNP has become a get-out clause, especially for Labour – a way of avoiding the issue in order to press ahead with policies that a majority object to.
I hope that’s a bit clearer.
laz hansen-
on thoes odd figures you thorught up the tories would get 209 seats labour 420 seats and others 20 beacuse of northern ireland as labour do not stand in this area
so 57.5% to 42.5% would give a big majority
for the tories to win in A TWO PARTY SYSTEM THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME 6% ahead of labour
Wayne, we’ve had our two ICM polls for April, but the Sunday Telegraph poll was under the banner Marketing Sciences rather than ICM. Due to the the bank holiday our next scheduled poll will be Populus on Monday 11th May. Of course that doesn’t rule out the possibility of unscheduled polls.
Wood,
With regard to your comment:
“… if you chose to live (or were born in) the richest part of the country, that doesn’t suddenly mean you’re poor if you’re not as rich as your neighbours….”
None of us choose where we are born, and most prefer to stay near family and friends. So it does matter if there are great differences between various parts of the country. For most people, poverty is a comparative perception measured against their neighbours – because that is what they can see and understand.
If we take your point about comparing ourselves with Indonesians (a rather bustling place where the people seemed to me happier than you would find on a stroll through parts of London), then presumably we should measure poverty and wealth in absolute terms – i.e ability to feed, clothe and house our families and provide for their physical and emotional security.
In which case the idea of abolishing “poverty” in the UK is a nonsense, since that goal was achieved decades ago.
If it is okay to define “poverty” in relative terms, then why should we not look at our position relative to the town in which we live ?
It is because Labour have ignored the pressures they have piled on people in the South-East while doling out subsidies to their “heartlands”, that we have a divided country, and Labour will pay a price for it at the next elections.
Will Brown wait for the very last opportunity for the G.E.
then. Will it be June 2010? Could he wait til the 31st?
Why wouldn’t he?
Actually he may be hoping for another bounce. If enough people die from Flu, then expect him to start personallty injecting them with tamiflu (or whatever it’s called) he may even pop across to Mexico and try to help them as well.
The BBC today were saying how he is coming back and will want to be fully briefed before making a statement (maybe on YouTube) – let’s hope he’s better “advised” than he was over MP’s expenses.
Sorry but it made me froth…
I’m surprised he hasn’t duetted with Susan Boyle yet. Maybe she turned him down.
‘Will it be June 2010? Could he wait til the 31st?
Why wouldn’t he?’
Because there’s only 30 days in June!
Sorry – only being daft
While my username shows my feelings I’d rather there were less partisan comments from all sides on here
It’s interesting what people are saying about 150k being a lot of money and that it should be taxed more.
I wanted to say a word about entrepreneurship. It is worth noting that other than the state, every job that is created is by a company owned by individuals or consortiums of individuals through shareholdings. Whatever the mechanics, at some point someone has decided to take the risk to begin a new venture.
Many people complain that there are not enough jobs available in their area. It is only if people begin to expand or start new ventures that new jobs come on to the market. People will only start new ventures for substantial financial reward.
I own my own small 1 man consultancy company and I earn a decent living in the course of that. Now if I wanted to expand my company and say employ 5 people who I would train and find work for. That would be a massive risk for me as I would need to set up premises and be sure I could pay their salaries.
Therefore I would need to think I would get a substantial reward for this risk. High marginal tax rates decrease anyone’s desire to set up these ventures if they think that the government is going to take 50% of that in tax + employers and employees NIC. With those you are looking at a large proportion of the funds disappearing before VAT, Business property taxes, corporation tax etc etc.
So the upshot is higher taxes = less entrepreneurship = less jobs = more unemployment. Certainly in terms of small business and start ups.
Stuart Gregory
Thanks for that but did you read my question correctly?
At least I had a reply instead of history lessons!
hanks
Laz
Neil,
I doubt that UKIP will get a result as high as that.
Their publicity and media exposure if nothing compared to what it was last time and they do not have Kilroy-Silk on their side this time.
In 2004, the Tories were not a credible party for the Euro-sceptic majority in the UK and thus those voters looked to UKIP. The Tories are certainly a lot more electorate and credible now and will pick up a lot of the UKIP voters.
Furthermore, the Tories are not going to run this election fighting about Europe because, simply, no-one cares. They are going to fight about national issues and make it into a protest vote over Brown and Labour. If the media spotlight is taken off of Europe (it’s not just a European election remember) then UKIP will not be able to campaign effectively on their only issue.
I agree, who cares about the EU at this point in time; the recession / depression is obviously world wide so UKIP is even more irrelevant than normal. The EU voting will be based on people’s normal views, not anything particularly EU (not least as KIlroy-Silk was fa far higher profile than any of their ‘normal’ candidates).
Neil’s prediction is almost the same as one I made a few days ago, although I had the Tories slightly lower on about 33%.
@Keir
No worries – he’s already been successfully stage managed at Auschwitz. Why is it the Downing St press office feels the need for him to make a big statement everywhere he goes?
I have been to Auschwitz and you don’t need to write a great condolence note. There are no words that can do justice to the place. ‘We must never forget’ is all that needs saying.
Cliff – “These are the facts.”
They are, but all facts have dates. Change the dates and the ‘facts’ also change, which is why things aren’t so clear cut as you think. Brown took a lower % in tax for most of his time at no 11 than Thatcher did for much of her time at no. 10. What does that tell us? Probably not much.
George Faux –
“High marginal tax rates decrease anyone’s desire to set up these ventures if they think that the government is going to take 50% of that in tax + employers and employees NIC. With those you are looking at a large proportion of the funds disappearing before VAT, Business property taxes, corporation tax etc etc.”
It’s only 50% once you enter the realms of the richest 1%, and all the other taxes you mention would be deducted from profits before you begin to calculate individual earnings. Your last point about higher taxes = less jobs is also somewhat contentious. Germany for example has in general a better employment record than the UK but with higher taxes. The relationship is much more complex than that, and I suspect is more to do with the relationship between taxation levels and how and what it is spent on.
@ JJ I agree with your sentiment that generally speaking there is no great confidence in the Cons.
There has been a very gradual growing support for the Cons which climaxed in October 2007 in response to Cameron becoming leader. Since that time they have rarely polled less than 40%. Nevertheless, there are no great expectations from most people that the Cons will do great things.
But disenchantment with Labour has grown to distain for a large minority of those who voted for them last time. Many are ready to vote for the Cons against Labour. Many as you suggested may very well stay at home.
I am confident that, such are the numbers that will turn away from Labour at the GE, all the Cons need to do will be to appear adequate in order to win a landslide victory. Mediocrity will come as a welcome relief after so much patheticness.
@Alec – Brown took a lower % in tax for most of his time at no 11 than Thatcher did for much of her time at no. 10. What does that tell us? Probably not much.
It tells us a lot.
Thatcher came to power during a recession and the public finances in a complete mess after the last Labour government.
It took her two terms to right the ship.
When Labour came to power in 1997 there had been 4 years of sustained growth. Debt was low, Government take of GDP was 38%. Now government debt is much worse than it was even in the late1970s and the GDP take is close to 50%. It may take 3 conservative terms to sort the financial mess out this time around.
This is not open to “interpretation”. We are talking about basic accountancy. 1 + 1 = 2 etc.
As a labour supporter you would be better advised to argue the merits of spending tonnes on the state than trying to “interpret” the figures because that won’t wash.
“The relationship is much more complex than that, and I suspect is more to do with the relationship between taxation levels and how and what it is spent on.”
Alec-you can suspect as much as you like & dream up cpmlexity galore.
It’s actually very simple.
The Director of Personal Tax at the Treasury explained it yesterday to the Treasury Select Committee-they expect to receive 31% of the possible total income from the top rate tax increase in the Budget.
To put that another way Alec 69% will be lost because of avoidance, less work, or simply going somewhere else with lower taxes.
George – I wasn’t saying that £150k should be taxed more, but that sums earned above that figure should (though whether 50% is too much is arguable)
CLiff -It took her two terms and a lot of Oil and a lot of family silver to get us in the state we were in in 1990 (which wasn’t particularly healthy)
All this revising of history (ok I’m as susceptible to partiality as any-one) now that the polls show a big lead is disturbing, but to my mind it’s in Labour’s interest to draw the “down with the state” brigade out into the open.
Colin – you caused me to look up the IFS research paper on it yesterday. All about elasticity and incredibly complex. I had to lie down. and I can’t find it this morning.
However, the gist was that the IFS applied certain criteria , the treasury only slightly different criteria to determine the level at which new tax would be “uncollected”. In both cases, the level of expected avoidance was very large. The IFS concluded that while no-one knew the answer, it was likely to result in modest savings, and the Treasury concluded that the savings would be considerably higher.
The point is that no-one knows yet, but no-one is “making it up”
If you google BSS IFS TAX you’ll find it. Let me have a precis by 11 OK?
OK john.
I guess in the end this thing about taxing income comes down to political philosophy-but ultimately it defines the sort of economy;and indeed society you want.
I am in favour of higher earners paying a higher rate of tax.( as well of course paying a higher quantum of tax which they do in any event).
But I think 40% is internationally competitive, and 50% may not be.
In any event I do not think that £150kpa is the threshold for “very high income” in UK-or anything like it.
What I object to profoundly is the definition-by the State-of what constitutes an unreasonably/unnecessarily/unacceptably/…. high income.
That way lies the economy & society of Fidel’s Cuba.
I fear that Harriet’s view of “Equality” is but the first step on that road down which the State says whether your income is acceptable to it.
john-I should have said of course, that at the lower income end of the scale the State most definitely has a duty to ensure acceptable minimum income levels for people in work, people who want to work but cannot, the chronically sick & disabled etc .
George Faux,
I fully recognise your arguments about the risk/reward balance which would make you pause before expanding your business from just yourself to create a handful of new jobs. It is something every entrepreneur needs to consider.
But, have you thought about the regulatory minefield you will enter as soon as you become an employer of others ? The incredibly excessive burden of petty regulations (about to be made even worse by Harperson) means that you will probably need to emply one person full-time just to ensure that you comply with those regulations. Harpy would say that shows that her proposals can create employment. But the reality is that the cost – not just in cash, but time and effort and distraction from developing the business itself – not to mention the fear of punishment should you inadvertanly fall foul of teh regulations, means that you would be best advised to stick to being a one-man business.
If you have to go through all that, then face punitive taxation rates because the envious socialists think nobody deserves to earn more than a specified sum, what incentive is there to undertake a wealth – and job -creating enterprise ?
That is the job-destroying effect of regulation that people who have never been near running a business simply do not understand.
The 50% rate is only going to take 31% of the maximum amount?
Considering there will be some who earn £150k who will be moving all of their money elsewhere, I wonder what amount of tax lost in the 40% band the treasury expects. Still, I suppose if the goal was to increase the amount of capital gains tax they bring in then they will succeed.
Mark – it’s all there in the research I pointed Colin to. The BSS figure suggests you’ll get most from the upper earners at around 43%, whereas the Treasury graph shows “optimal rate” (ie before it falls off a cliff as everyone leaves the country) is around 60%.
Both forecasts suppose and take account of a very large rate of avoidance measures.
I don’t know how charitable giving might be affected – my own rule of thumb would be to increase giving to charity during Tory years, and reduce it during Labour years.
The day after the Com Res poll came out I thought I’d pay another visit to the pub near Westminster Bridge where I met the Tory researcher last week (amazed there weren’t any journos about but perhaps they haven’t caught on to this venue yet as it’s not on the normal ‘circuit’). There were two this time and they seemed to be having a bit of a celebration as a result of the even better polling news from their perspective — the one I encountered previously and a young women who said she worked in the office of someone close to Cameron!
If they are to be believed, the Tory ‘age of austerity’ agenda seems to be gathering pace, with job cuts of arouind 250,000 in the public sector being contemplated, overall unemployment peaking at 3.5million followed by a sharp recovery well in time for another election win in 2014-15! If these ideas are tossed around during an election campaign anything could happen as public sector workers and their families are a farly high proportion of the electorate in some areas and they aren’t going to be too happy about their prospects under a Tory government. The researchers weren’t so keen to discuss ideas about what to do about public sector pensions but it’s clear that Cameron wants to save money in this area and we will all have our own ideas about what this might mean.
@ Observer – trouble is, we’re in such a mess now that some people are going to have to pay at least a temporary price no matter what. Of course no one wants it to be them (and I’m sure we all share that sentiment) but it’s inevitably going to be someone. That’s going to happen whichever party is in power and I think most voters know it. The burning question at the moment is more about which party will be best able to pull us out of that situation as quickly as possible so people only suffer for a couple of years instead or for 5 or 10 or whatever.
Personally i cannot believe we are spending £220 billion on benefits. This government has created a scenario where too many people rely on the state for handouts. This has now come at a massive cost to the taxpayer.
I know some of you will argue that this is due to rising unemployment, however under Labour we have seen a huge raise in the ‘long term’ unemployed before the recession, which these people have no intention of working and are willing to let the state look after them.
Whoever is in power after the next election will have to cut spending and raise taxes because like most i reckon Darling is somewhat wrong on his predictions and we will probably owe an extra £1 trillion is 4-5 years time.
I would like to thank all those who voted for Labour in 1997 under the banner ‘things can only get better’ because you were conned and things have got worse within the last 12 years.
Tom – I think things did get better for a while, and the next election will depends on who remembers what.
Most won’t forgive being harmed by taxes, unemployment etc, and likewise, most won’t remember the good things.
Thwe general opublic don’t really appreciate being called naive, but if Cameron wants to run with that, good luck to him. Just paints himself into the “hasn’t changed” corner.
Carrying on from the “levelling out” of post-tax income due to rising income tax, whilst we only look at the “big stars” of our society, everyone is affected the similarly.
That means everyone in the system, from the semi-retired lollipop lady who realises that the benefits system will give her just £10 less than if she worked for 12 hours a week, through to the office worker who won’t work as hard for the promotion because, after tax, the difference in income is irrelevant, to the top-rate entrepreneur who can and will leave this country to another, taking their taxable income, and their job-creating nous with them.
These taxes blunt the entire economy, and everyone in it. Especially now, when the banks are looking at severe prunings and cost savings, they can more than add their top employees’ salaries by just paying them the same in Switzerland (effective top income tax 50%) vs. ours (about 70%.
And when they’re gone, they’re gone. Once they’ve dissolved their capital here, and built it somewhere else, it takes a lot to shift them back here.
The success of this relies on enough people not being driven by money. Other things come into it for some people,. Perhaps a large number will leave, but not after doing some sums, and working out how much money they would be saving, and whether it would be worth the upheaval for hte extra cash.
I don’t care too much about a lollipop operative cutting down her hours, or anyone else, that just leaves a gap for some-one else to fill.
OK, let’s talk about tax and why it is important for polling (which is what this site is meant to be about). If 60% of people say they are in favour of a 50% tax rate why does Tony Blair and his allies think it is such a bad thing?
Answer: very simple: First it is a symbolic thing: To maintain the centre ground nowadays it is important that the electorate does not perceive you to be reflecting the more extreme wishes of your party. Hence Cameron’s position on the NHS, and Blair’s on tax. For Labour to be seen to raise income tax is likely to be seen as the “thin end” by many floating voters, even those that are completely uinaffected
Secondly tax take is very likely to go down. Why? Not because of the people that can’t avoid it such as some doctors and lawyers who are on PAYE, but because of many people who might not have bothered to find avoidance at 40% (when they probably could have) are “pushed over the edge” by the 50% tax rate. Therefore increased avaoidance overall more than cancelling out the increased take form those who can’t avoid it. Very simple really.
This is why clever politicians like Tony Blair interpret certain opinion polling very carefully before taking them as guides to policy that might have unexpected ramifications both in terms of governing and also electorally.
Nigel; – ref to the IFS research to show how complex it is – the data they draw on is based on waht little evidence they can deduce from the effects of lawson’s reduction in 1988. Fiendishly difficult to work out.
Re Polls – I don’t believe the 60% in favour would put their money where they say their preference is, and I think Blair recognised that. It won’t convert into votes in favour of Labour.
The thin end of the wedge argument is strong too.
As I said earlier, the optimum rate is anywhere between 43% (hardly anyone would bother) and 60% (lots would bother)
I myself wouldn’t bother unless it was making a serious dent. An extra 5k on the bill ? that’s if I earn 200k i think.
When the tories suggested the non-dom hit of £25k? I distinctly remember some of them being interviewed by the BBC and suggesting it would be tolerable as a one-off. (ie not the thin end of the wedge)
@ John T T
“The success of this relies on enough people not being driven by money.”
That’s why it fails, that’s why bonuses exist, that’s why prizes exist, and that’s why I’m not a socialist with their head in the clouds and their hands in other people’s pockets.
Forgive me whilst I mock your naivete.
Richard – no need for the ad hominem insults.
Not everyone will make life choices based on how much they can earn.
That’s why down-sizing exists, that’s why people retire early to enjoy themselves.
That’s why people donate money to charity.
That’s why the IFS struggled to come up with a difinitive analysis.
Nothing to ask forgiveness for, no naivety, just intellectual rigour applied to commonly known facts.
John TT – I agree that it is a difficult one to call in terms of tax take, though I know for a fact that some wealthy people I know have now been motivated to visit their “tax planners”, when before they might not have bothered. We aren’t necessarily talking about people moving abroad, I would imagine this is probably a small number, but there will definately be a lot of people who take a bit more notice of their accountants than they used to. Don’t forget, even though you might think it serves them right, wealthy people are also seeing incomes fall, so will be doing what they can to legally avoid any further erosion (through tax). It would be very interesting to have an opinion poll of high earners to see how they have reacted.
I agreewith Blair that this move is disasterous for Labour electorally, as any intellegent floating voter sees it as a desperate throw of the dice by GB, and a further “lurch” to the left. Expect to see further “lurches” in the coming months that may on the surface seem popular, but in reality will further erode public support of the “big picture” of Labour competence and values
NigelJ – you (and Blair) are right in the sense that it begs the question “what do they stand for now?” Is it a culture change within the party thinking, or is it necessity born of incompetence? Not an easy question to answer,
An increase would be more defensible if it had been delivered as a temporary step, to be reduced back to 40% as recovery picked up. That would have at least quietened the “thin end of the wedge” argument.
John – we are in complete agreement (your last comment)! this would also have tested the hypothesis to see whether tax take increased or decreased. Unfortunately I think the decision was more motivated by the baser instincts (envy) of the labour party, trying to wrong foot cameron, and trying to shore up the increasingly flaky core vote.
As someone who considers themselves a moderate I think it is a great shame when one of the main parties starts to move to the extremes (as the Tories did post 1997), as it means the other party gets a free ride.
Phew! That’s got to be a first
The Tories are as vulnerable to their own “extreme” though. They do have an opportunity to occupy the centre – I have a feeling they might just still blow it.
“The shortfall in public finances should be met by cuts in public spending instead of tax rises” – 27% of Conservative voters disagree with this statement.
Could this one be a case of people answering as they think they should answer, rather than as they actually thing? 1 out of 4 Conservatives seems an awfully large amount to be opposing spending cuts.
Other interesting ways to judge the country’s mood is to look at the LibDem responses to ConLab questions. On “I trust Gordon Brown more than David Cameron to lead Britain out of recession”, 26% agreed and 62% disagreed. Typically those questions get a roughly even split of agree/disagrees and a lot of don’t knows from LibDem voters.
Mark – The 60% “in favour” of a 50% tax rate probably include a few conservatives too. “in favour of” doesn’t mean “will vote for”
John
On the case of the 50% rate, I’m more interested in the breakdown of the 40% who don’t support it. Even assuming that anyone who earns over £150k is opposed (which probably isn’t the case), that still leaves a fairly sizeable proportion of people who do not support the tax even though they won’t be affected by it.
@Paul I agree about the definition of poverty by the govt, fortunately the opposition hasn’t ever abused the misnomer to kick up a fuss, but probably the incumbent has always felt that to try to change the definition would give an opportunity for slating and moaning that the opposition and various campaign groups would be unable to resist.
My point about Indonesia (the stats back up your happier perception, some 20 points happier IIRC), was that in any discussion about govt, we should compare about the juristiction of the govt….if we were discussing the world as a whole, everyone in the UK is rich….if discussing Mayor of London you could compare the struggling areas to the thriving, but with national govt I think comparisons should be national….it wouldn’t be correct to say that the north is just as well off as the south because houses cost less up there.
I can see your point about staying in London, it is a different situation from where many of us could move to a shithole town and still be in bussing distance of friends and family, but that only makes a little difference. To take your phrase “ability to feed, clothe and house our families and provide for their physical and emotional security.”….the only way Londoners have that harder is in the house part…..private health care isn’t more expensive in London, I can’t get a car any cheaper if I go to Manchester to buy it…food doesn’t cost more, nor web, tvs, music, life insurance, clothes…..
So I pretty much stand by what I said, if you choose to live (or were born, without choosing of course) in an area where many people want to live supply and demand will make housing/rent more expensive…but I don’t believe this means someone on 50k a year choosing to live in London isn’t well off…I can sympathise with the choice being difficult if you were born somewhere and would have to move beyond reasonable distance of your social circle to get non-expensive housing, but it is still a choice not to move…..and 50k Londoner does still have a new car, new clothes, a big screen tv and good food.
Hope ya get my point, but agree to disagree anyways…getting more than a little off topic
Or realistically hope to in the future.
Isn’t it the same re the IHT? Very few will get the benefit,but most applaud the policy of virtually abolishing it.
Maybe it’s just one of those things that sounds wrong to people, even if they’re not affected.
At the other end, there’ll be many who support the idea of a minimum wage – out of a sense of what seems right rather than out of a financial calculation of what might affect them.
I still think Cameron will get in more because of his nicer smile than any thing to do with policies.
Perhaps the electorate knows that our choice of govt will have only a peripheral effect on outcomes for each of us. I know in my case that success depends on a combination of my actions and those of the USA.
Sorry, that last was to Mark M
@ John TT
I am afraid that whilst a few people are not driven by money and self interest the mass of society is. That is why Adam Smith was right when he said:
“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.”
He was not saying he liked this, that it was fair or good but that it was th reality and any system of government and taxation needed to work with this in mind.
It is why Robert Owen and St Simon’s socialist projects worked on a small scale but collapsed afterwords when they tried to launch more/grow them.
It would be fantastic if people would work to their ability but only consume to their need. But such utopias always fail and any policies based on these ideals fail.
johntt @ :-
“… it begs the question “what do they stand for now?” ”
Yep.
NigelJ @:-
“Unfortunately I think the decision was more motivated by the baser instincts (envy) of the labour party, trying to wrong foot cameron, and trying to shore up the increasingly flaky core vote.”
Yep.
@John T T
I apologise for my ad hominem attack, it was unfair. I had hoped it would be moderated out as soon as I’d posted it.
In general, though, I think we’ve all gone off the debating the poll results, me included!
At the beginning of this thread, I had pointed out that Brown had managed three blunders in rapid succession. In the following two days, we have seen the Polish PM lecturing Brown on budget deficits and his defeat on the Gurkha veterans. I don’t think that even Major at his worst managed so many embarrassments in such a small time.
Tomorrow, one major line of media reporting will be on the Gurkha vote, and if the government continues the line that they spun (we’re ignoring the vote), the story will continue to run. Has the Brown “brand” been damaged beyond recovery?
The Gurkha vote is fantastic – happiest bit of politics in a long long time. My grandfather served alongside them in WWII – he’d be delighted by this long overdue result and I’ll raise a glass to him and his comrades tonight.
Interesting to see how that and tomorrow’s vote on expenses affect the polls. Can Labour plummet even lower than 26? Will Brown survive the week?
John TT,
“The Tories are as vulnerable to their own “extreme” though. They do have an opportunity to occupy the centre – I have a feeling they might just still blow it”
I hope so!
I haven’t waited 12 years for more of the same. Big cuts to waste and, in the long term, big cuts in tax. I wan’t carnage!
want
I hope that the public will come to their senses and vote Labour at the next election, although right now, it seems very unlikely.
Don’t worry Ivan. That’s not the worst apostrophe abuse I’ve seen recently
“Changing room allocation for today’s matche’s”
(Seen on a sign in a rugby clubhouse)
I am to the left of British politics in many respects; it will take me an awfully long time to forgive the Tories for the 1994 Railways Act as an example.
I am not a professional poll watcher either. But my gut feeling is that Brown has totally cooked his goose. And if they lose on Thursday then do the honourable thing and fall on your own sword.
Of course apostrophes of omission used not to exist at all if you go far enough back in the language. Let’s also be aware that Shakespeare spelt his own name in several different ways.
‘Apostrophe abuse’ merely reflects that it does not reflect the reader’s position. Normally what is meant by ‘apostrophe abuse’ is that a particular use of the apostrophe does not match the reader- normally a middle class, conservative person educated in say the 1960s rejecting an alternative which they see as lesser.
Language is (bar Latin) a live subject and changes; any attempt to set it in concrete is wrong. AS said, go far enough back and no apostrophes of omission exist. Re language change; go and read Chaucer in the original; basically unreadable for the normal human. Why? Language changes.
The issue is really whether one understands what is said. Would it really matter if apostrophes of omission disappeared. No. Why. Does it alter comprehension? No.
Interesting usage of the word waste by some here….I know what ya mean, but it does seem a bit of a broad definition…..some of us may think the govt shouldn’t be spending money on certain things/projects that we think it shouldn’t bother spending money on (ack, circular logic I know :/) but that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s waste, just a difference of opinion….left wing v right wing.
I doubt this govt, or many left wing govts, has been intentionally wasting money*…they’re just….legitimately further left…..and I don’t reckon it’s sensible to claim that left wing parties are by default less efficient than right wing…….along the same lines, I recall someone saying that the level of support for the 50% tax was a sign of brainwashing (or something like that)….move to suggest that some people just have genuinely more socialist views than those opposing the tax…
On apostrophes I must admit I’m more one for usage than the dictionary as king, and an occasional tendancy for fancy language and loose interpretation of the rules led me to send the word(s?) she’ll’nt’ve to a bemused american a few weeks back.
*Of course there’ll be some waste in any govt, impossible perfection….
John TT,
“The Tories are as vulnerable to their own “extreme” though. They do have an opportunity to occupy the centre – I have a feeling they might just still blow it”
I’ve never understood this idea of parties trying to win the ‘centre’. The centre is movable. In the 70s both the main parties vied for the centre, with disastrous results. Then along comes Mrs T and effectively said “This is where I stand, this is the new centre”.
She temporarily changed us from a nation of state-dependent whingers into self-reliant home-owning capitalists – Remember council house right-to-buy and Sid the shareholder in Gas? Whether you agreed with her or not, she moved the political centre to the right – hence Blair’s dropping of Clause 4 etc. This couldn’t have happened without Mrs T.
The leaders of both parties should show leadership and stand for what they believe in (if anything) rather than chase a mythical centre-ground.
@Wood – with regards to waste, what you seem to miss is that although no government can ensure that nothing is wasted and in fact there is a school of thought that says policing wastage must be proportionate to the sum and the task or it too become waste, this government has a culture of waste, a culture of throwing money at a problem and hoping that it will get better. In any efficiency report you will find on any government department, a lot of maoney and time and resource is wasted on an inability to make decisions (for example) another is the high level of paperwork abd the dreaded B word (again back to appropriate policing). Most of this is due (IMHO) to the fact that the majority of labour cabinet ministers have never run their own company and have little to no financial training in real world economics. I’ve even heard people to be overwhelmed by the numbers that they are dealing with and forget that each penny they are spending is coming from the taxpayer. They do not see the connection – whereas someone with some business knowledge and experience can relate all the money spent to the money recieved (those that can’t go out of business very quickly)
When is the next poll due – sorry if someone already asked
@Cogload I agree that if they lose the vote on Thursday Brown ought to realise his time is up. It should already be dawning on him that the best thing he can do for his party is to step down. But its not something I would bet any money on. I can’t see him resigning until he absolutely has to do so.
The problem for Labour is that Brown has filled the cabinet with like-minded, like-standard people and there is a strong possiblity that a bunker mentality will develop. The only way for them to be driven out before the GE is by a full scale mutiny by Labour MPs and the party.
I do hope the party can purge itself of the Brownites. Speaking frankly, in my view and suspect of many others, these people are so far up their own arse they are unable hear the electorate let alone respect us. The only thing they respect is power and people like themselves who have power e.g. leading bankers and investors, officers of the Gurkhas but not the ‘ordinary’ soldier and not the ‘ordinary’ public.
I grew up in a working class family thinking that all Conservative MPs are snobs and I still think a lot of them are this. But this is almost nothing compared to the arrogant, self-righteous, self-deluded power worshippers that are leading Labour at present.
I do hope that Labour can purge itself soon and achieve balance and humility providing a healthy opposition to what appears to be soon a Conservative government.
The thing about the Gurkha situation that bothers me most is that it suggests somebody in government thought sending them all back without a penny might have got more votes than being decent to people who have fought and died for our country. It indicates that the government is getting things so inside out and upside down they can’t tell good from bad policy anymore. Goodness knows what we’ll see in the next Labour manifesto if that’s the case.
Keith, based on comments the Labour guest made on the Daily Politics today, they totally misunderstand public sentiment about immigration. They think we’re all bigots who don’t want anyone foreign coming into our country, and they think if they let the gurkhas in, we’ll all go and vote BNP.
Er, no Gordon. Not really. We just think your immigration policies should be more selective. The gurkhas are fine with us.
@ Kevin T – yes, exactly right. Brown really doesn’t get it at all.
Thank-youi Richard Mann! I don’t think it’s off topic to talk about where “the centre” is.
The comments re self-interest, if they are made by Cameron supporters, rather squash his theory that charities and co-ops will step into the breach left by a dwindlind state.
Doesn’t the moving of the centre to the left a little over the last 15 years simply reflect that we recognise that self-interest prevails too much, and that collecting taxes is a fairer way of raising funds for services than asking people to pass the plate around?
Pete B. Good question on what constitutes “the centre ground”, and as you say it is a shifting concept. I think it is fundamentally defined by which party is seen as the more considered and moderate by the bulk of the electorate and media, and is often defined by the party that is behind in the polls that is viewed as the more extreme.
Strange though it may seem now, it could be argued that Mrs T was more moderate than the very fractious and very left wing (CND suppporting) Labour party of Michael Foot. Even though I loathed him, I have to admire Alastair Campbell’s description of the Tories “lurching” to the right. This “lurching” was seen as very unattractive by the electorate as was regarded as the behaviour of those on the political extremities. So even though many voters are Euro sceptic in opinion polls, they were very uncomfortable about the Tories continual navel gazing on the subject. Equally I believe that whilst opinion polls may suggest that they support 50p tax, they will see it as further Brown “lurching”. He has fallen into his own elephant trap!
Will Brown stand down before election?
Surely too proud/stubborn!
Who will want to replace him at this point in time?
Do any of you see this happening?
Nick
Replace Gordon Brown? Nobody in the Labour party has the guts.
John TT,
Common socialist misconception that social goods can be better achieved through government action than by voluntary agencies, and therefore all social services should be centrally provided and funded through tax..
There are some services that it is right that Government should fund.
Equally, there are a large number of services which may well be better provided locally through voluntary organisations, but in the past fifty years the state has crowded them out.
There are also a large number of government activties which provide no services to anyone and which do not assist the productive economy. This is where the real “waste” is.
Where we are agreed that Government should fund a service for the public good, there is a separate debate as to how those services should be provided and at what cost.
Some methods of service delivery are inherently less efficient than others. In general terms, the more responsive a service is to its end users, the more likely it is to be efficient. To be responsive, it is important that strategic, as well as operational decision, can be taken close to the service user rather than centrally. That will inevitably lead to diversity rather than uniformity in the provsion of services.
Finally, and, in the current fiscal environment, most importantly, we need to move away from the Government saying: “these are all the things we want to do, now give us the money in taxes”, and to a more prudent approach where the government looks at what the country can afford, then prioritises the services it wishes to provide to keep spending within its income. If that means that certain “services” can no longer be provided, then so be it. That after all is what every individual up and down the land has to do when asessing their own spending priorities (apart from the idlers who imagine that the “state” has a duty to provide for their profligacy).
@cynosarges
Yep momentum is building. The surprisingly large Gurkha vote defeat will only embolden Labour MPs to rebel against Brown’s authority. 28 voted against and a large number abstained as well.
Brown’s problem is he is psychologically incapable of being politically flexible when faced with dissent.
If he loses the vote tomorrow, a vote that he has staked a lot of political capital on, then it will almost certainly be ‘open season’ on him after the euro/local elections.
He’s obviously decided that he has to fight his corner now.
On a personal note, I want to congratulate the Commons for making the right decision on the Gurkhas. It is shameful the way Britain has treated them over the last 200 years.
@ JohnTT – there are not many people who advocate zero taxation, just as there are not many people who advocate 100% taxation with people’s needs assessed and catered for by government. Outside those two rare extremes, the rest of us are simply arguing about how much taxation, from whom, and how. Absolute self-interest is as rare a stance as absolute State dependence.
KEVIN T
A very interesting observation.
There is the increasing impression of “ivory tower” about this administration. Perhaps it’s because they are so beleagured now, they don’t get out much; perhaps they rely too much on special advisers & focus groups; perhaps this happens to all ageing governments.
In any event they begin to look completely out of touch with the public mood.
johntt @
“charities and co-ops will step into the breach left by a dwindlind state…..collecting taxes is a fairer way of raising funds for services than asking people to pass the plate around?”
This is a characterisation of Tory policy which you have used often john.
I just don’t think it is accurate.
For me the only-and absolutely key-area where you might have gained this impression was IDS’ Conference presentation on Social Justice.
He platformed a number of third sector organisations & asked them to explain the problems they faced each day, the way they tackled them, and how that compared with State provided services & initiatives.
Some dealt with drug addiction, some with children’s social problems etc etc.
What they said & were achieving impressed me greatly-as they obviously did IDS.
BUT-I am sure that the intention is not to close down DSS and all State initiatives on Social problems, and then “leave it to charities. ” The intentn, I believe is to identify those third sector organisations which are achieving results from the bottom up, and replace their centrally provided, top down counterparts with them….funding them from taxes.
This is a strategy about best provider & value for money.It embodies the idea that social problems are most effectively tackled from within the community-not from Whitehall.
Tom @:-
” would like to thank all those who voted for Labour in 1997 under the banner ‘things can only get better’ because you were conned and things have got worse within the last 12 years.”
Mea culpa Tom. But don’t blame me for Brown.
I lived & worked through Wilson’s & Callaghans administrations & should have known better-but the Tories had become so depressingly awfull.
I will never believe the Labour Party again -whatever it calls itself.
An interesting piece on pb , highlighted from the last ComRe Poll, that half of declared 2005 Labour voters said they would no longer vote Labour.
I want to pay for those in need to be helped. That is the default position, I think, for anyone who believes in a democratic society.
Why though do Labour supporters always defend every single penny of government spend when it is clear that at least some is ‘wasted’? It makes me suspicous of their aims.
Do we really need befriending co-ordinators, street football co-ordinators, toothbrush advisers for infants, billions spent on ‘consultants’, Id cards?
Maybe some people would like them, so let them set up a bloody charity for it if it’s so important. I do not wish to pay. In the same way that I would not like to pay for cotton wool to be placed around all lamp posts just in case somebody walks into one!
The trouble is that all these expenses can be justified as ‘useful’ to somebody. The trick is to concentrate on the core aspects of running a society.
That way you don’t run out of MY money after a decade or so and you don’t run the risk ( as you doubtless see it) of a state ‘destroying’ period of Tory rule.
James – I agree. Most here argue for less reliance on state and more on the individual. In other words lower spending and lower taxes. Yet will this really lead to the increase in volunteering that Cameron/Conservatism believes will happen? I don’t think so.
Colin, I’m sure I’ve heard Cameron bangin on about the great untapped resource of volunteers that are going to be at our disposal. I just don’t expect enough to come forward.
If a toothbrush adviser saves the NHS ten times their salary in reducing the need for children to be hospitalised with oral disease, then that’s worth it, Ivan. I know it’s the parents’ fault, but the kids shouldn’t be the ones to suffer.
Ivan who’s run off with our money? And have they no conscience? Is there no recourse other than to take it out on the benighted? No teven the removal of an honour given for services to The Market?
“I know it’s the parents’ fault”
Yes of course it is.
At some point the State has to decide that it is the “parent” problem which has to be tackled-not the lack of toothbrushes.
Colin, I think that’s what the tootbrush consultant does – paid by the state to educate parents and get kids to brush their teeth. That will save us money.
“I’m sure I’ve heard Cameron bangin on about the great untapped resource of volunteers that are going to be at our disposal”
Ah I understand now john.
They may or they may not-but where service delivery is being funded by the taxpayer, the third sector provider will , as I say, have to be funded by reference to outcomes-that’s the key thing.
If they can continue to draw on volunteers & charitable income great-but in the circumstances IDS was describing, their income would flow from their performance.
I recognise that you could cross a line here, and change a succesfull formula for localy based services, provided by highly motivated people, in close touch with their “clients” to just another government quango with more money than purpose.
They must not let that happen.
“paid by the state to educate parents and get kids to brush their teeth.”
Erm……isn’t that what we pay dentists to do?
And everyone has access to an NHS dentist don’t they?
You’re not usually sarcastic Colin!
The point is, the outlay on questionable services is as nothing compared to the billions squandered by the bankers. Yet it’s the kids who are denied a proper toothbrush to pay for their “entrepreneurism” and “talent”
@ JohnTT – it’s all very well raging at the bankers but the bottom line is that it’s the government’s job to regulate the banking and finance industry. And the government manifestly failed to do so adequately. And while it’s true that the preceding Tory govt. didn’t do it either, Labour has been in power for eleven very long years and is way past the point where it can reasonably blame its predecessors for its own failings.
Ah, so now we are reverting to the nonsense that “it’s all the bankers’ fault” – what a lot of cobblers. The reason we are in the mess we are in is because of government fiscal policy – tax, borrow, spend, waste – and a failure of regulation, not because of all those evil bankers with red eyes, little horns and arrowed tails.
The financial services sector is the main source of wealth creation in the UK, and while we have seen some pretty stupid activities from banks – not least in terms of lending (which again points to a failure of regulation), the economy depends on them entirely.
It astonishes me that you are willing to defend such frivolous wastage as “toothbrush advisers”, while attacking any investment in entrepreneurism and talent – the mainstays of the economy.
James , I agree (again!)
However, the raging against the Govt for not saving £20bn (or whatever figure you like) is a bit like complaining about the water rates, when you’ve just found out your house has been demolished.
Neil – I think the polls suggest that most people blame A the bankers for blowing us sky high, and B The Govt for not stopping them.
Who do you blame for crime? The criminals, or the Govt for not stopping them?
“Yet it’s the kids who are denied a proper toothbrush to pay for their “entrepreneurism” and “talent””
I think you (we!) need a new Poll quickly !.
Colin -I agree! I’m obsessed with the idea of the country going to the dogs because we’ve spent all our cash on 20 million toothbrush advisers. At £3k a pop.
John,
I blame criminals for crime (I also blame the government for not stopping them, but that is a separate issue from the blame for the crime itself). The analogy is not a good one, because it is not the bankers who have blown us sky high – they may have helped, but they are not the main culprits.
The financial markets are in essence a confidence game. If confidence remains high then all is well – of course there still needs to be some common sense applied. The FSA has 4 statutory objectives, all of which it has failed miserably to meet, the most important being to maintain market confidence. Is this the bankers’ fault? Perhaps in a small degree, but in general it is due to the outrageous lending policies which were ENCOURAGED – not just approved or overlooked – by the FSA and the Treasury.
This must be one of the most commented on polls ever on this site!
@John T T – at least we now accept that what happened was a crime. In terms of an individual crime I would blame the criminal. However when there are a series of crimes within and organisation, then I would blame the perp and the organisation for having that culture. When that culture is endemic across a sector I would blame the Authorities that are in place to regulate it (in this case the tripartate system of regulation setup by GB) –
To see it a different way, who do we punish for war crimes? the soldier or the commander.
Neil and Keir – I don’t disagree with any of that. It’s just a bit rich that “self-interest” is not only accepted as a fact of life, but also encouraged by the same people who blame the Govt for encouraging mis-placed confidence.
The individual bankers would have been fired if they hadn’t done what they did (I think some actually were fired for sounding alarm bells)
Brown argues (or at least Blair did so for him) that he’d have been fired if he’d proposed the sort of changes that would have prevented the catastrophe.
It really is a tragedy for Brown – who could have believed he’d be brought low by his own confidence in the free market? He should have encouraged not self-interest, but an interest in collective activity. That would have been more in tune with his roots on the left of centre.
John,
I think we are getting some more common ground on this issue – but I still think you are rather missing the point.
It is difficult to say anything other than that it was Brown’s changes that actually caused the catastrophe. The Treasury is responsible for the FSA, not only politically, but practically and legally under schedule 1 of the Financial Services and Markets Act.
My view of matters is that taking regulation away from a professional body within the sector (the Bank of England) and giving it to a centrallised super-quango (the FSA) is rather more “left of centre” than “free market”, wouldn’t you agree?
House prices fell 0.4% in April, the Telegraph is reporting. Chris Newey will be disappointed
After the ’spring rush’ turned out to be a damp squib all the new houses put back onto the market recently due to slightly more optimistic expectations will drag prices lower still over the summer.
You heard it here first; oversupply will drive prices down another 10% by december. just about the time the government will be forced to allow interest rates to higher I suspect.
I can see Labour shedding another 2-3% vote share before it’s all over.
@Mark – taking glee at bad economic news speaks volumes on the mentality of people like you! Typical Con if I ever saw one.
It’s this obsession with bad news and shouting down, rubbishing and ignoring of any promising news stories will be identified as major contributor to the situation we face today.
This natural assumption that their vote share will grow is incredibly arrogant and hilarous – I think the opposite! When they start to have put some policies down and not empty headline grabbing toot I can see and hope this lead will soon disintergrate. Tthe astonishing free ride they’ve enjoyed will soon be over even by their far right press pals.
There’s already wispers of splits in the Cons because of the massive cuts they are planning – soon this won’t be burried and remind the public what the Cons stand for.
“I’m obsessed with the idea of the country going to the dogs because we’ve spent all our cash on 20 million toothbrush advisers. ”
I feel you are getting a bit confused john-so much has happened it is sometimes difficult to remember the sequence of events.
Dental hygene in our children suffered as a result of the underfunding of the state dental service, compounded by the botched new contract which saw dentists leaving the NHS in droves.
At this time Bankers were good people because they were making lots of money, and Gordon liked them because he got lot’s of their money in taxes-not enough of which he spent on toothbrush advisers ( known at that time as NHS dentists.)
Then the Bankers found that they had a lot of bad debts , and Gordon decided he had to give them all their taxes back so they wouldn’t go bust. He decided “Bankers” were now bad people-but none of this made any difference to childrens’ teeth which continued to be as bad as they were when Bankers were good people.
Now however , because all the Dentists have left the NHS, they too have become bad people, and are being replaced by “toothbrush advisers”-which we cannot now afford because all the Bankers have got our money-or their money back depending how you see it.
So the toothbrush problem is , as you can see, just another example of Gordon not fixing the toothbrush, when the toothbrush fairy was smiling.
Now the toothbrush fairy has gone, along with the dentists & the bankers & it’s all a bit of an oral & financial mess.
‘Why though do Labour supporters always defend every single penny of government spend when it is clear that at least some is ‘wasted’?’ Ivan
Be careful of the generalisations Ivan – ‘always’. The obvious riposte here is why do Conservatives always believe all govt spending is wrong and should only be done by private companies. Neither position is true.
As the old line goes Ivan–all generalisations are false.
I think neither extreme is accurate, but when you, Ivan, posit total generalisations about human behaviour (such as Labour supporters) you are asking for whatever else you are arguing to be ignored as it suggests your world view is so totally black or white that I (for one) can not be bothered with the rest of your argument as it it based on a false premise (namely the Labour supporters total generalistion -okay some generalistions are true such as the sun will rise tomorrow).
Seriously Ivan, learn the difference between discussing a point and between making rash generalisations that make you look foolish. Your statement about Labour supporters ”always’ doing something requires you to have evidence that every single Labour supporter does something. There is no way you can know that. To make your argument more reasonable you needed to phrase it more along the lines of ‘ many / most of’ then you could have proceeded with an argument that might have encouraged people to read your comment.
I would suggest that many of us know labour supporters who do not support every single penny of govt spending which is the basis of your ridiculous generalisation; I would nominate the areas of ID cards, G20 policing, kicking Gurkhas out, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq would find at least one Labour supporter opposing govt spending and, as such, it points to the absurdity of your comment.
‘You heard it here first; oversupply will drive prices down another 10% by december. just about the time the government will be forced to allow interest rates to higher I suspect.’ Ivan
And please stop making predictions for the future; you can not possibly know this. Of course, we can all make a guess about anything but it hardly counts as intelligent discussion, which is what this area is meant to be amount. If you want to play random guessing games please do it elsewhere…
@Chris
I take glee at a fall in house prices, not because I am a Conservative, but because I am a prospective first time buyer.
Sure, I feel bad for those in negative equity but I didn’t force them to overborrow so I don’t see why I should feel bad because I waited rather than trying to get in on the boom.
@Jack
Unless we’re random guessing about the election, but that will have to wait until election night
Neil – I would agree it was all the fault of the tri-partite system IF the financial crisis had started here, and not been imported. The banks are global institutions and relied for their confidence on credit agencies that were outside the remit of the FSA
It’s no good blaming only our Govt – you have to blame the US Govt, the Icelandic Govt and all the others whose banks almost went pop.
Re confidence – what would it have done to our sytem if they’d allowed the banks to fall? The great myth that all opposition politicians allow (probably out of their own self-interest) is that the banks were saved to suit them, and not the wider interests of the economy.
Colin – you have clearly been drinking the mouthwash instead of swilling it. We can’t afford bad teeth, and we can’t afford dentists, so the best thing is to send out free toothbrushes and a Tooth Tsar to make up for the disgraceful cuts that destroyed the dental service. I can’t remember when, but I think it started before the botched contract.
“This natural assumption that their vote share will grow is incredibly arrogant and hilarous – I think the opposite! ”
But in thinking the opposite Chris, do I assume that you are not incredibly arrogant and hilarious, but incredibly modest and realistic ?
There is a lot of discussion on here about dental hygene and not much about polls. Anthony must be away!!
@Chris what do you have to say about the well in excess of a billion pounds that Labour have spent on their failed tactics on dealing with truancy. And the increasing numbers of parents who have been jailed simply because they were not strong enough mentally and physically to force their 15 year old son/daughter to go to school.
Don’t you think that increasing the compulsory age at which a person can leave education will make things worse?
Don’t you think that instead of aggressively usurping parental authority regarding education that Labour would do better to listen respectfully and respond realistically and constructively to the challenges they face?
Maybe he has taken a job as a toothbrush advisor. From soothsayer to toothslayer!
maybe we should discuss whether or not the polls have been affected by a decay-ed of waste hoho
Not that I wish to grind anyone down in debate
…but then I guess it is a good way of FILLING in time between polls
Nigel – Nice one! I’ve been toiling away waiting for a decent punchline for hours.
So it’s all the govt’s fault for not making people take more responsibility. Who’s fault is it that Govt gets the blame? The Govt’s of course. Same Govt that gets it in the neck when it interferes. Also gets it in the neck when it doesn’t.
I think people relate to Govt like a spouse in a bad marriage – very soon after the honeymoon the defects appear and nothing can be done apart from wait for the recriminations. Hope, Happiness, Disappointment, Disillusionment, Despar. And then some-one better comes along. And the whole process starts again.
I bet Brown’s aas fed up to the back teeth as the rest of us.
johntt @ :-
“I can’t remember when, but I think it started before the botched contract.”
Doesn’t seem so john:-
Childrens Dental Health Survey 2003
Preliminary Findings
National Statistics Office
Key findings :-
• The proportion of five and eight-year-olds with filled primary teeth has declined since 1983.
• There has been a decrease in the average number of filled primary teeth in both five and eight-year-olds.
• The proportion of eight, 12 and 15-year-olds with permanent teeth with cavities into
dentine and permanent teeth with obvious decay experience has decreased.
.There was a decrease in the proportion of 12 and 15-year-olds with filled permanent
teeth.
The average number of permanent teeth with cavities into dentine or obvious decay experience among eight, 12 and 15-year-olds decreased between the 1993 and 2003surveys.
Then :-
New NHS Dentists Contract -April 2006
Then :-
The Independent
Friday, 6 June 2008
“New contracts for dentists have been an failure, ministers were told yesterday as new figures showed the number of people seeing a dentist had slumped by nearly a million since they were introduced.”
@JohnTT
“IF the financial crisis had started here, and not been imported”
While not wanting to deny America’s share of the problem, the Wikipedia timeline shows
Sep 07 – Northern Rock seeks support from BoE
Feb 08 – NR nationalised
Mar 08 – Bear Stearns collapses
Sep 08 – Global financial crisis
Oct 08 – Iceland’s major banks nationalised
While hindsight is a wonderful thing, would proper regulation not have said in Sep 07 ‘Hmm, now what has happened at NR, and are any other institutions at risk?’. Interest rates were still at 5% going into Sep 08. Poor regulation both sides of the Atlantic caused this. We are not blameless.
Does this post hold the record for the number of comments attributed to it (currently 273 and counting)?
Poor regulation both sides of the Atlantic caused this.
I atand by my belief that the regulkators can’t be held responsible for the deed of the people they are there to regulate – any more than you (I presume) would allow the govt to be blamed for a child not brushing properly.
Colin – well-researched as ever. So the Govt should do all it can to improve matters, like spending money on oral hygiene.
I think we are desperately awaiting a new post to appear…..
If we all shout out at the same time “I do believe in (tooth) fairies”, then Anthony will reappear and give us something new to talk about!
Andrew – you, and now I, have distorted any true measurement by contributing in that manner.
Mark – by the time NR went down it was already too late to do anything.
Cutting interest rates then might have helped, but the errors were already in the system.
@John
Indeed. Heysenberg’s Uncertainty Principal at work
I’d like to know the root cause of all the problems with the dental contract
Particularly whilst Gordon is fighting tooth and nail for his political life
@John T T – Polland seem to be ok, do I congratulate their government or other governments as well?
also there is nothing I can do about other governments, but I can sure vote this lot out with a few like minded thinkers to help me out
. America is not accountable to me, but GB is.
Thank you Jack for your useful guidance on, most recently, how to write without ‘generalising’ and, previously, on your rather ‘laissez-faire’ views about the correct use of apostrophes in English.
I especially liked;
“Normally what is meant by ‘apostrophe abuse’ is that a particular use of the apostrophe does not match the reader- normally a middle class, conservative person educated in say the 1960s rejecting an alternative which they see as lesser.”
I hope we can both agree that we’re all capable of generalisations occasionally.
It’s just that Labour supporters ALWAYS seem to get personal!
John TT
Bad marriages usually arise because one or other party (or both) has entered into the bargain too hastily and/or with unreal expectations, and then is either unwilling / unable to adjust those expectations to reality and put in the effort needed to overcome the ensuing problems in cooperation with their partner.
The way you describe it suggests that the problem is with the institution, and not the parties involved. Your solution, that one should hope for something better to come along, is a classic example of externalising responsibility.
We are all, as individuals, responsible for our own actions (or inaction). If we are dissatisfied with the outcome, then we should look at what we have done (or failed to do) and how we can do better. To put the onus on an external party to do that for us is to act like a child.
That is what the Age of Irresponsibility has done for us.
OK, I know I’ve been very guilty on occassions in the past, but there does seem to be a need for everyone to look at Anthony’s “Comments Policy” .
He will be less than enamalled with all of us if we don’t get back on thread
If we can I promise to quite the dentist jokes. Sorry, but someone had to have the gum-ption to say something
@ John TT
On regulators and responsibility. In a sense I agree the regulators themselves cant be blamed too much in this case as they had to work in a system not fit for purpose and were not experienced enough to deal with the situation they found themselves in.
The main responsibility for their inability to act earlier lies with those who changed the regulatory environment. The previous people who worked at the Bank of England who used to do the regulation all left when this moved to the FSA and new people came in from lawyers, accountants etc who had no experience of regulating. The previous people and system would have had better and more relevant experience to spot the property hedge funds that were Northern Rock and BOS masquerading as banks. They also would have been more likely to do something about it.
The recession would still have happened but we would have been in a better position than we are now. I.e. with a bankrupt government, consumer and pension black hole but at least with functioning banks.
Obvious this is all conjecture and opinion, but in my opinion having people in place who have the correct experience to do their job is usually a good thing. Especially if the consequences of failure to do that job effects lots of other people.
hmmm – not a single mention of the word poll in that last contribution. i’m running out of Toothbrush Advisor jokes too!!
No great floss I suppose!
Keir – Did you mean Holland or poland?
Lebanon are OK too.
Incumbent Govts all get the blame, whichever side of the centre they are.
Paul – if only my first wife had met you, I’d still be thoroughly miserable
hey, I have a great idea, why don’t we discuss opinion polls in a non-partisan way?
Nigel – I think you should amalgamate your jokes into one post. You deserve a medal – and a crown.
How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?
Or it that a bit too off-topic?
Did anyone mention that it was tooth hurtie?
@John T T – but who do we blame if it’s still going well?
@NigelJ – you’re funny
There seem to be quite a few comments, both by John T T, and others, about “moving into the centre”, etc.
Perhaps it isn’t that politicians move to the centre, but that the centre moves to them?
I think it’s fairly non-judgemental to say that Heath/Callaghan were far more in the paternalist/state-governed tradition than Major/Blair, and that anyone who advocated renationalising telecommunications, railways, water, etc, might be considered, today, far to the left.
However, in 1975, the idea of privatising them (i.e. to today’s current situation) would, I suspect, have been a rather radical neoliberal/right-wing idea.
Doesn’t this suggest that the middle-ground, or “centre”, shifts with the public opinion at large, and that, perhaps, our perception of “centre” changes as much as politicians’ positions do?
John TT, 12.23pm:
“The great myth that all opposition politicians allow (probably out of their own self-interest) is that the banks were saved to suit them, and not the wider interests of the economy.”
OK, now this discussion has gone full circle – initially I was the one defending the bankers. If the bigger banks (e.g. RBS, HBOS, Lloyds) were not saved the economy would have gone down the pan – I know that. Interestingly, the people I tend to see at my university with placards saying “bailout students not bankers” and such like, tend to be the ones who you also see selling the Socialist Worker – so not exactly the Conservative party’s core vote.
Somewhat less defensible was saving Northern Rock.
Maybe I should feel gulty about starting the comments on this Poll, given the number of comments.
However in my defence I did suggest to Anthony some months ago, when whe was seeking thoughts on this site, that comments should be limited to say 100.
I have to say I think I would make the same suggestion now.
I agree with Richard Manns. Blimey.
Keir – David D has accepted responsibility for the wqhole thing. Good man.
if there’s a limit of 100, I volunteer to have all but one of my comments removed. That should do the trick.
DAVID D
If Anthony doesn’t like it he will tell us to stop.
Meantime people are enjoying themselves here. God knows we could all do with a laugh.
What the hell has the number of comments got to do with anything?
Colin – go on do the 300th.
mark M – I’m sick of the “hypotheticals” IFIFIF . Woodchuicks can’t (or won’t?) chuck wood, and should never have been encouraged to think that they could.
It’s taken a while, but I have at last thought of the best dental joke of all….why did Gordon mess up the Dental contract and do so badly in the latest poll?
Because he was doing his Mc CAVITY act
And I know that how ever much you try to drill down into the details you will be unable to find anything to suggest he will be able to BRIDGE the GAP in the polls
Right I think I am all joked out on this one. It really has been a GAS.
I am sure Anthony will be back soon and be reminding us all of the cement policy
Tsk. Anthony goes off for a few days to participate in a jousting tournament and look what you lot get up to while he’s busy tilting.
@John
That’s harsh. You’ve broken the hearts of a generation of budding woodchucks who just wanted to win the caber toss.
NigelJ
I was about to say I think that one takes the biscuit… then I remembered another poll and the diversions on that thread.
Colin has it right when he notes we are enjoying ourselves. After all, Anthony only left us 7 lines and no tables – and just look what we have made of it.
@Mark M
Roughly 14 stone, 7 feet, into a bush. Little buggers are strong.
‘It’s just that Labour supporters ALWAYS seem to get personal!
’ Ivan the terrible bore
Wrong Ivan; I’m not a Labour supporter. that’s again your typical assumptions at work. You need to realise that if people analyse your view ansd spot your lack of logic it does not mean that they either agree or disagree with you. It merely means that they fine your logic skill risible.
And I point out that my comments were about your poor arguing skills, not about you. As such your statement above is a fallacy on two points.
One, I am not a Labour supporter (I’d be interested to see how you support that statement) and secondly nothing I said was personal ( I solely analysed your weak argumentative skills). As scuh your comment wa merely that of atabloid mouthpiece (that’s apersonal by the way, you can respond to that with an emotional comment if you like)
So again you have shown your inability to analyse a comment. To you it seems that any comment against your views is axiomatically a pro-labour position. It’s not. All I have done (again, overall) is show the weakness and lack of logic in your views.
All yopu have done is taken a personal response.
Grow up.
(But hey. I suspect you are the useless Oracle and we all know – if true- you argued against 60 opinion polls to say Obama would lose so really you should just retire…)…
So again you prove my point about your inability to argue (but this time you didn’t pull out any magic predictions for the future, so that’s an improvement. Well done)
You needed to work into a rebuttal of me using words like patronising – and accurate.
@All – we should all start a petition to have anthony allow all discussion to be like this
That should result in some gnashing of teeth Anthony grinding his way through the decaying control which now seems more of a veneer over the truth. Capping it all off with what we would actually all like to be doing on this site drilling into the detail and filling in all the holes giving each other a good pasting whilst brushing hurtful comments away and trying to prevent a rot at the center of government – ok that’s my contribution done
@Jack – I think I missed the point of Ivans post, I think it was done to provoke a childish response from you. However I see that you have responded from the higher ground as usual – well done
Pages 20 and 21 of today’s Times certainly gives some credence to my encounters with Tory researchers in that pub near Westminster Bridge. One thing I forgot to mention in my comment (about 200 contributions back) is the two things that are worrying the Tories come the GE and those are (1) the possible impact of Brown going and a credible person taking over and (2) the exposure of the 17 millionaires on the Tory front bench once the campaign got going.
Being a millionaire isn’t really a big deal these days. If you’ve paid off the mortgage on your own house, and have inherited your parents’ house you’re more than halfway there, most likely.
I admit it’s still a minority of the population, but being a millionaire isn’t exactly mega-rich these days.
That’s true enough. You only have to look at popular culture to see how the language has changed…
“Millionaire Bruce Wayne” is now “Billionaire Bruce Wayne”
The Six Million Dollar Man would barely be able to afford a bionic knee-cap
And since the onset of the credit crunch news reports that used to speak of millions and billions, now seem to talk of billions and trillions.
“the exposure of the 17 millionaires ”
Strange word to use.
If you know that there are 17 of them, how can they be concealed?
And why does it matter?
No idea. I don’t exactly see the headlines “Exclusive – Rich People in Parliament” causing too much of a stir.
That, and the Labour front bench is hardly representative of the working classes either. I don’t see that being an issue unless the Tories make an issue out of it (e.g. too much denial).
I don’t think Brown will go without losing a general election and he’ll put that off as long as he can too. He’s the type whose fingernails will leave deep scratchmarks as he’s dragged screeching from office.
Labour MPs haven’t got the guts or the alternative candidates to oust him sooner. Possibly they’ll flubber him to political death though.
I’d love to understand how the message currently being presented by labour biggies is being recieved by the populus: – “Gordon is Badly Advised”, “we need collective leadership”, “someone should be with Gordon to assist him in avoiding political landmines”, “Gordon need to give a clear vision (presumes someone will tell him what it will be). I’m not sure these comments will help the labour party in any way other than as a rallying call to the party members. From my perspective it reads that Labour has no head, noone is steering the ship.
The really interesting one is the calls from David Blunket to say that we did not elect the leader we elected the party and we should almost forget about GB in terms of the election and go back to electing the labour party……tosh it just seems to go from bad to worse. If this isn’t a sign that Gordon has lost both his political compass and political authority then I don’t know what is. They’re talking about you as though you’re not even relevant to the next election. You’re already being brushed under the carpet or consigned to your room when the visitors come round.
@Keir
if I can attempt to keep this non-partisan. The thing about Blunkett’s view there is, what do Labour have left to offer? They have fallen into the ‘Labour governments run out of money’ situation and don’t appear able to rescue it. For 12 years the solution has been to hose money at the problem. For the most part that was a successful, if occasionally inefficient, solution. That cannot be done now.
This was neatly summed up when one of the reasons given for their stance on the Gurkhas was that it would cost £1.4bn to let them all in. The first thing I imagine a lot of people thought would be ‘well you found hundreds of billions for bankers and you can’t find £1.4bn for those who fight for us’.
Their leader is deeply unpopular with the voters and the party, unless they have a surprise package of reforms up their sleeve, just don’t seem to have anything to offer given the current situation.
It was forecast by the emminent “Oracle” a while back that the Labour Party will not survive the next election – that Britain will become a 2 party state between the Tories and the Liberals (whatever name they may have at that stage after some Labour Party members join them). Perhaps they will be called “The New Labour Social Liberal Democrats” – that would get them some good keywords on Google !!
On the Gurkha point – I don’t think Brown was wrong in refusing them entry – he just timed it wrong when he is on a downer – there is absolutely no reason at all that the Gurkhas should have an automatic right to live in Britain. They got paid a probably a 100 times more than they would in their home country – it was job !
Plenty of nationalities and countries have fought with Britain especially during the 2 world wars – like Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Rhodesia, India etc – they are’nt allowed an automatic right to live here !!
While I agree with James about Brown’s willingness to depart (non-existent); I think Keir is right in that leading members of the Labour party are clearly talking as if he is already history. That cannot be good for Labour, and we will undoubtedly see it reflected in future …whatsits..thingummys.., you know the stuff we are supposed to talk about in this site.
Big Al
I don’t think the central tenets of new Labour are about to disappear.
The great sea-change towards a country that likes a smaller state, freedom and trust to individuals is as far away as ever.
Particularly because the current situation was brought about not by a failure of left-of-centre ideology, but by a perverse adherence to free-market principles by a Govt that didn’t seem to trust its own “new” ideology.
Labour will recover, and adhere to principles that are not objectionable to most. In contrast, the SDP grew out of disillusionment with a bonkers ideology. No such ideology threatens the foundations to-day.
There’s no great clamour for the conservatism of Redwood, Tebbitt etc, notwithstanding those who think we were wrong to get rid of Major in 97.
On the subject of Brown being ousted…
I seem to remember comments less than a year ago, before the “Brown bounce” that suggested that, unlike the Tories in recent years, the Labour Party has as yet little formal method of ousting a leader.
Also, who will take the mantle? An upcoming leader will not want the taint of loss. An “old statesman” could take the mantle, Howard-like, but the current Labour seems too fractious and nervous for the party to act as one over the next leader, when this might dictate the future direction of the party greatly.
I think that Brown will not be pushed aside easily, and Harman et al. are quite happy to position themselves for the post-election battle, rather than sacrifice themselves in the next election, when the sacrifice won’t obviously boost Labour.
Richard – Labour have a very formal method of ousting a leader, all card votes at conference and suchlike.
It is so difficult though it’s highly unlikely to ever happen in practice. I’m sure if Brown was ousted it would be by informal methods, like a cabinet rebellion or the Labour equivalent of men in grey suits.
@Anthony Wells
Ah, I stand corrected.
“the Labour equivalent of men in grey suits.”
White coats?
Highly unlikely, as there’s no choice, and no obvious change of course. In a year’s time, Brown might just be able to say we’re pulling out of recession. No-one’s going to deny him that possibility, it wouldn’t make any sense.
Anthony – you’re back!! You have been missed
I think we are all very much looking forward to your next NEW post
@Anthony – don’t believe them, I have been totally non partisan whilst you were gone, it’s just those mad lefties that keep trying to smear me
@Mark M – About being non partisan, well there was nothing I said that has not been repeated by staunch labour supports. Brown has no authority and no respect from the majority of his party. That is not Tory dogma nor liberal sentimentallity, it’s the truth not partisanship.
I was noting more that “supportive” words of Mr Blunket in his “defense” of Gordon – it felt to me as though he was just putting the final nails into the coffin of gordons authority.
@JohnTT
“Particularly because the current situation was brought about not by a failure of left-of-centre ideology, but by a perverse adherence to free-market principles by a Govt that didn’t seem to trust its own “new” ideology”
I have to disagree with that second part. The left-of-centre ideology failed in the 70s and we haven’t been back to that under Blair/Brown. In order to defeat the right, New Labour came up with the Third Way, an attempt to merge the free-market with government intervention,mostly through heavy regulation.
It was a very successful initial idea as Labour got to spend heavily, as per their left beliefs in the big state, while using their regulated market to drive up tax revenues and create growth. Unfortunately, the failure of the regulator meant that banks were taking on too much risk (partly the banks’ fault for taking the ‘regulator approves so lets do it’ route) in order to create this growth. In my view, this crisis is a failure of the Third Way, not of free-market capitalism.
But then, I am a rightie so could well be biased
@Keir
I was actually agreeing with you, not accusing you of being paritsan. I just put in the bit about ‘non-partisan’ so that people would realise I wasn’t trying to make a party political point by saying ‘what does labout have left to offer?’
I agree, Blunkett isn’t helping Brown but I don’t see him being forced out before an election. Still, have we ever had a PM not even make it to his first election before being ousted by his party?
“Labout”? and “Conservatin?”
Mark, I think the Third Way is a little left of centre – minimum wage , tax credits, over-measurement etc. It certainly is not”nationalisation” or raisingoverall tax levels. They were hamstrung by having to rely on borrowing rather than taxing in order to spend.
“the regulator approves so let’s do it” . True, but I’ saying that if the regime had been a little more “rightie”, they’d have approved too – a little more “leftie” and they might well have stuck their noses in and smelt a rat.
“White coats?”
Very very funny john!
“Still, have we ever had a PM not even make it to his first election before being ousted by his party?”
That prospective legacy must haunt Brown. I really think he is capable of saying & doing anything now-and most certainly will not step down except for ill health.
His C4 interview yesterday was extraordinary.
The pressure on him must be very great.
“They were hamstrung by having to rely on borrowing rather than taxing in order to spend.”
john-In what sense were they hamstrung pre-recession?
From 1997 to 2002 Brown reduced national debt from the 49.8% he inherited to 38.5% .
Tax revenues were rolling in during the boom years.
He then started running annual deficits to push up public spending, returning National Debt to 50% ish by 2008.
How were they hamstrung-they used the tax revenues from a decade of economic growth , leaving National Debt at slightly higher levels than they inherited.
Unfortunately, as we now know-huge chunks of that growth finished up as bankers’ bad debts and was seen to be illusory & unsustainable-hence the recession.
49.8% etc etc …of GDP.
re The Third Way,:-
Anthony Giddens, ( Blair’s Third Way guru )wrote an article in The Independent in June 2007 outlining it’s key tenets with reference to Gordon Brown’s then impending Premiership.
The article included these four policy principles :-
“…hold the political centre-ground. No social democratic party can succeed today through a class-based appeal. The point is to try to shift the political centre of gravity leftwards. ”
“ensure the economy is strong. Securing greater social justice depends upon a robust economy, not the other way around. ”
“invest heavily in public services, but insist that this is coupled to reform, to make the public services more effective, responsive and transparent. Choice and competition are essential to these aims; they are the means of generating reform and of empowering citizens who use these services.”
” create a new contract between state and citizens, based upon responsibilities as well as rights. Government should provide resources to help people shape their own lives; but should expect people to deliver on their part of the bargain. ”
“don’t allow any issues to be monopolised by the political right”
@John T T
I would claim that, given John Major’s power-sacrificing but damage-controlling actions to the economy from 93-97, actually I suggest that righties would watch more closely, because the economy is “their thing”.
I would suggest that lefties care about the economy as a tool for social change and spending (these are gross generalities, I know), then the maxim “don’t look a gift horse in the mouth” might have prevailed in Brown’s thinking.
Of course, I can’t prove this!
@Richard Manns – not genralisms at all if you veiw labour as socialists and take the marxist veiw that socialism is an imperfect implementation of financial control as a path towards perfect communism
@Richard Manns – not genralisms at all if you veiw labour as soci-a-lists and take the ma-rx-ist veiw that soc-ial-ism is an imperfect implementation of financial control as a path towards perfect comm-unis-m
Sorry some word appear to be moderated so trying to get them through by adding stuff
Colin,
Is that a prime example of left of centre accounting ? I had to double-check, but I make that five “principles”.
Or maybe, there is only one principle (the last) and the others are tokens to pretend they are prinicpled.
For the record, the concept of “class warfare” is anathema to most Tories anyway. The second, third and fourth have been natural conservative philosophy for decades, minus the emphasis on government doing the providing and “investing” (aka spending).
So really, what Giddens was saying is:
“steal all the right’s ideas / principles, but apply them through state control and public money, then tell the voters that those nasty conservatives would cut all this lovely spending.”
John TT is correct in saying that there is no failure of “New Labour’s” ideology for the simple reason that it has none. Nor does it have any abiding principles other than the pursuit and retention of power. This is what Blunket means when he refers to a lack of coherent social policy .
But if one has based one’s appeal on pragmatic competence, what then remains when you are shown to be an incompetent devoid of new ideas or any moral foundation ?
@ Colin
I now understand why Labour still achieves poll ratings of 25%. People like you believe Brown’s false debt figures. I suggest you go to the Office of National Statistics website, and look at the figures that Brown quotes. And then read down the page, to where the ONS places a disclaimer that Brown’s figures are not accepted by the EU because that are not calculated correctly. If you want to quote debt figures, obtain them from a reputable international authority, say the OECD or the EU.
need more polls, we are in a dead patch for polls at this time untillthe election starts properly
PAUL HJ
No-it was centre right adding up I’m afraid-mine!
I agree with your post & was contemplating that DC could happily subscribe to 2,3 & 4.
1 is a means for the left to curry favour with the electorate, & 5 is a way to stay in power-these are party strategies, not political philosophies.
I think Gidden’s hope that Brown would subscribe to The Third Way was fanciful. Blair could have told him that Brown never believed in 3 ( other than the spending bit!) & spent most of his time trying to ensure Blair couldn’t implement it.
Perhaps Giddens just needs to wait till next May now.
Cynosarges.
The debt figures as % GDP were ONS figures-if you can point me to different figures which are credible I would be interested.
Borrowing forecasts by GB ( or anyone else for that matter ) are a different matter entirely !
People getting fed up with the excessive number of comments on this poll, for want of another on following days, might care to look at the discussion which is going on in relation to the constituency of Worcester.
The basic issue being discussed is how national opinion poll figure should be translted into predictions for individual seats.
The view I have expressed in relation to Worcester is that when it comes to commenting on individual seats, pundits just do not believe that the swing will be as large as the opinion polls will suggest. E.g. people may expect that the swing in individual seats will be perhaps 8% when the opinion polls suggest 13%. But past precedent, e.g. in 1997, suggests that when the opinion polls suggest a very large swing it actually happens.
This problem could be reduced if we had larger polls, like the excellent PopulusHome one last Autumn, that enable information to be provided (if at a fee!) for individual seats.
It follows that, unlike Stuart Gregory, I would actually like fewer polls if this meant that the resources were instead deployed to larger polls. But of course the crucial factor in deciding what polls will be conducted is what clients (including newspapers) will pay for. And I suspect that pollsters are taking some well-deserved leave to relax before the European and County elections.
On a slightly different subject, I am rather cynical of the oft-quoted argument that the Budget 50% tax rate was not really intended to raise money, but was only a political gesture to wrong-foot the Tories.
The logic of this argument is that if Darling were now to say “I’ve listened to those of you who argue this and you’re right, the 50% rate won’t raise much money. Accordingly, we have decided to increase the rate to 70% instead to double the take.” then those who make this argument should logically support such a policy.
I don’t think I’m being too cynical in doubting that the Tory front bench would be cheering such a policy!
Near genius Leslie. If one logically supports the raising of renue through a punative tax on £150K+, at lets say 70%, then the net result would be an exodus of the rich and a deterent to net inward investment to the UK. Which….. would result in less tax.
The irony in your assertions is; there would be cheering on the front bench of the Tory part as New Labour would have effectively committed suicide.
Your not cynical you’ve just not thought it through.
Anthony, I note that in the box below the “running average” of “how would you vote if there was a general election today graph”, includes the “would not vote at all” option for YouGov and Populus.
Bearing in mind that the last two polls where YouGov, was there any significant percentage for this option out of interest?
@Neil,
I realise you might find the idea of a low result for UKIP a bizarre idea, and it isn’t wishful thinking on my part.
The reason I think they are going to collapse is because so many of their established faces are disappearing; they are completely off the radar and have been for ages; and they are becoming completely pointless as an organisation.
Much of their support is disgruntled Tories, and there are more UKIP-friendly Tories about (I thought Dan Hannan was a UKIPper at first!).
Those UKIP voters who wanted to make a point to the Tories have done it, and are smart enough to see where the momentum is going, and what good news for their POV an increased Tory presence in the EU parliament is, bearing in mind the Tories have swept across Local Gov and nabbed the London Mayoralty.
The other UKIPpers for whom the Tories are too left wing, and are filled with resentment about the establishment I think are likely to vote in anger for the BNP; leaving a paltry few stalwarts in a crumbling organisation with little funding or sense of purpose.
UKIP have also got direct competition from the well funded Libertas, and they have other rivals ready to grab the quirky vote.
Look at areas like East Anglia – you’ve got that One-Man-and-his-Dog party; and then there’s the English Democrats I suppose, who at least have more of a point to them than UKIP.
Whatever you say, I just can’t see UKIP doing much; I wouldn’t be surprised if they end up as just a one-man-band by the Euro-elections after these ones coming at the rate they’re going; I certainly wouldn’t be surprised if they lost 4 of their MEPs, simply by having their vote split by other minor parties.
Mr Wheeler isn’t really showing much confidence with (for him) a paltry £100 grand, is he?
…that’s not to say I don’t think UKIP can turn it around. I think a lot can happen over the next few weeks that could shuffle percentages up or down 5% for any of the parties.
UKIP
Anyone seen it any local / national papers?
I haven’t.
In a time of worldwide economic and health crises the limited view of UKIP is again shown to be pointless.
@Neil
Incidentally, here is my (rough) prediction for the national shares of the vote:
Conservative: 37%
Labour: 18%
UKIP: 14%
Libdem: 13%
BNP: 8%
Green: 5%
Nats: 4%
Others: 1%
I think that’s nearly realistic; but far too optimistic for UKIP: the BNP are more likely to get 14% than UKIP are!
I just don’t see UKIP replicating their last result – not because their policy (singular!) isn’t supported, but because they are fading as an organisation. The BNP, in contrast, are on the rise; and like the Tories momentum has a fair bit to do with it. You’d expect the Greens to do well, what with all the ecoreligion about, but they just don’t come across as competent – same for the LibDems; they make the right noises, but apart from Vince, they simply don’t inspire confidence. So I think the momentum is with the Tories, and the nationalists (BNP, SNP, PC).
(My “Nats” guesses were national btw, and higher than yours! I think the SNP should do alright, better than PC I reckon.)
Leslie – The IFS research suggests that 43% would return the most tax in terms of trevenue, taking into account behavioural/avoidance cahnges. Treasury research suggest 60% is cliff-edge.
Both extremes are difficult to analyse because there’s so little empirical evidence.
Colin – Paul is right to point you in the direction that “to most Tories class warfare is anathema”. It’s the minority of Tories who are claiming to be about to wiel the power that I’m worried about. Most of my friends are tories, and they’re just as worried as I am aboiut that minority.
Given our initial hostility, I’m surprised how much I agree with Richard Manns. New Labour is (was?) all about using economic success to bring about social change. The mistake IMHO was to try to do it through deceitful means.
@Jack,
You’re right they’re invisible; but it’s not their “limited view” that’s the problem… it’s their limited funding; and limited publicity, due to their limited membership and limited organisation.
Protectionism and nationalism is the opposite of a “problem” in terms of zeitgeist: it’s the natural psychology in global storm, to retreat to home.
@ John TT
I think the Labour instinct to do a “Robin Hood” makes sense if you regard the state as a sort of living organism; and private companies as other living organisms in the same ecosystem… the public sector is the body, and in times of famine, it’s its instinct to take on more fat by feeding off as much of the other organisms it can to stay alive… like a giant red tapeworm {!}.
It’s totally silly, because by making more and more people clients of the state in one way or another, and making it more and more difficult to “reproduce” new living systems (i.e.: new companies), it creates a vicious cycle of less and less to feed off.
The healthiest thing to do right now, would be to create loads of special economic zones and new/small business incubation zones, and sack half the civil service in stages, and start inspiring people to use their skills to make money for themselves rather than parasitically via government.
You could have solved a lot of the housing problems by using Cottars laws to swap people’s mortgages for special Cottars tenancies, and free up their wallets for more positive purposes than financing unsustainable mortgage interest.
“It’s the minority of Tories who are claiming to be about to wiel the power that I’m worried about.”
I really don’t understand why john,.
Isn’t there always social grouping in any society to some extent or another?
I can’t see why the group to which a politician belongs, or has come from should be a factor for us to worry about-except where it causes that person to have no understanding of the condition of others; or to have a hatred of others based on their social grouping.
I don’t see any Soames, or Skinners in prospect for the Tory Front Bench.
Please send St Bernard with Brandy and freshly baked polls and remove all historians from this site.
Go on make my day!
@ Colin
The first port of call is Eurostat, their website is fairly user-friendly, and gives compatible figures across the EU. The OECD wesite has more information, but it is not as user friendly. You’ve got to be practised to get the best out of it.
The two best Eurostat tables for “official” government debt” are General government debt (tsieb090) & General government deficit and surplus (teina200). If you want to quote “official” numbers, use these.
Unfortunately, although both give “better” figures than ONS, they doesn’t tell the whole story
Every government “hides” it’s obligations by dubious tactics. (e.g. the Germans had dubious accounting for unification, Brown for PFI, PPP and Agencies, the US for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, etc) The underlying question has to be something of the form “Will the government cough up?” This is one of the places where professional economists earn their money. (I’m a system designer, but I’ve designed systems for a central bank, a financial regulator, and a number of banks and fund managers. I know people who do this as a job)
The next step is to adjust for these off-balance sheet items. Since they are national fiddles, there are no simple rules. In the UK for example, there were 659 government agencies, the last time I had to look it up. Some show up in ONS figures, some don’t. Some have government guaranteed debt, some don’t. For example, on 1 April 2006, the statistics for Government assets and debts changed – because the “Identity and Passport service” became an Executive Agency. Did the underlying situation change? Of course not!
There are a number of think tanks, universities, etc., who attempt to resolve this, and publicise their figures but they disagree on the details. Economists disagree. I am not qualified to make the decision on whether to include a particular quango’s debt, but I know British, German and Swedish economists that I do trust. You just have to be aware of the problem and understand the principles they are trying to apply.
—-
Below, I repeat one of many ONS disclaimers that you notice when you look below the headline figure that the Government quotes In my personal opinion, this disclaimer is the ONS saying “We’re being ordered to lie”, but this is only an opinion.
“The data on government deficit and debt under the Maastricht Treaty are calculated according to the ONS’s interpretation of the 1995 European System of Accounts (ESA95) and a United Nations Statistical Commission decision on the treatment of government receipts for use of the electro-magnetic spectrum. ONS also publishes a separate deficit figure consistent with a Eurostat decision which treats these receipts differently. The recording of some public sector interventions in the financial sector is still under international discussion; more information is included in the Government Deficit and Debt First Release.”
PROMSAN
It may not have been with any malice intended, but I would appreciate it if you didn’t lump the SNP, who I support, and PC in with BNP. The first two are parties that believe in the concept of civic nationalism, rather than nationalism based on race, and are pro-immigration (I am an SNP supporter who was born elsewhere, and of Scottish, English and N Irish extraction myself). The the third party you mention is downright racist IMHO.
To those of us who believe in Scotland’s independence, those who describe themselves as “Unionist” are British nationalists, and I don’t mean that as an insult i.e. they just believe in the concept of Britain being a nation state, while we Scottish Nationalists believe in a Scottish state as the best model of governance for our people and economy.
The “BNP” as they now call themselves are, after all, effectively the National Front of old and we in the SNP have nothing to do with them whatsoever (the SNP is 75 years old and the BNP is a much more recent) and we find them truly repugnant.
Anyway, I would be personally grateful if you could make that distinction in future. Thanks in advance!
The real danger for Labour isn’t the next GE – the polls might still swing but the game is basically up for Gordon. The big danger is a re-run of 1980, with the NewLab Right splitting off and joining the Lib Dems (finishing the work of the Gang of Four), and leaving an unelectable rump under a hard-left leader. I suspect that’s the real worry of Mandy, Clarke et al..
Gordon should be ditched by end summer, Alan Johnson installed by Oct – he’s liked by many current NON-Labour voters, myself included. Labour could reasonably take 4 months for things to settle down ‘in these difficult times’. GE Feb 2009. That’s as good as it gets for Labour.
…I meant GE Feb 2010 of course…
Simon,
Yes, the game is up for Gordon, but I doubt that there will be a smooth / clean handover to anyone – but if threre were, it won’t be Alan Johnson – for two reasons:
1 – While he may be popular in the party, he neither has official “Deputy” status (Harriet Harman), nor is he an “elder statesmen” to act as caretaker (Jack Straw), so he could not presume to take it unchallenged.
2 – I believe that Johnson has credible long-term ambitions as leader. Why would he accept a posioned chalice now which would leave him in a difficult position post GE ?
Even if Brown were to resign the leadership voluntarily (most unlikely), it makes no sense for Labour to select anyone as leader who is not obviously a caretaker to steer them through the next 12-15 months until they have had a proper debate about the party’s future.
But it ain’t gonna happen because Brown will still be sitting in Downing street next May waiting for the final declaration in case Chelsea returns a Lab MP to leave Cameron without a “working majority”. Even then, he will wait for the Palace to send the bailiffs rather than accept defeat gracefully.