Ipsos MORI’s monthly political monitor is out today, with topline figures of CON 40%, LAB 31%, LDEM 7%, UKIP 11%, GRN 4%. Full details and tables are here.

MORI also asked respondents to choose between the parties on various more specific measures – a bank of questions with back data going back to 1989:

  • On having the “best policies for the country as a whole” the Conservatives now lead by ten points (compared to a two point Tory lead in 2010 and 2014, and a Labour lead from 1992 to 2005).
  • On being the most clear and united about its policies the Conservatives lead by twenty points (compared to ten points in 2014, five points in 2010. The last time there was a lead this big was a 31 point lead for Labour in 2001.)
  • On having the best “team of leaders” the Conservatives lead by twenty-seven points (compared to eleven points in 2014 and five points in 2010 – again you need to go back to Labour in 2001 to find a larger lead)
  • The only measure where Labour haven’t collapsed is “looking after the interests of people like yourself” – here the Conservatives have a narrow lead of four points, compared to a two point Labour lead in 2014 and a four point Tory lead in 2010.

The poll also had questions about two policy issues facing Labour. One was Jeremy Corbyn’s suggestion that companies should be barred from paying dividends if they don’t pay the living wage. In principle this idea seems popular – 66% of people say they would support it, 17% of people would be opposed. In the survey MORI did a split sample experiment and asked the other half of the sample about the policy without any attribution, and half about it having explained it was Jeremy Corbyn’s suggestion. When the policy was identified as coming from Corbyn support was lower – 60% support, 24% opposed.

The obvious conclusion is that identifying a policy as coming from Jeremy Corbyn makes it less popular. This is probably true… but I wouldn’t get too excited about it. Conservative party modernisers used to make their case using similar data showing policies were less popular when associated with the Conservative party. I think the reality is that strong partisan supporters of other political parties will almost always be turned off a policy when it is associated with an opponent, so yes, putting Jeremy Corbyn’s name to a policy would make it less popular, but so would putting the Labour party’s name to the policy, or the Conservative party’s name, or Osborne or Cameron’s name.

The other policy MORI asked about was Trident. 58% of people opposed Britain getting rid of nuclear weapons, rising to 70% when it was asked specifically about unilateral disarmament… a similar figure to when MORI asked the same question in the 1980s.


111 Responses to “Ipsos MORI/Standard – CON 40, LAB 31, LD 7, UKIP 11, GRN 4”

1 2 3
  1. @ Candy: “There’s going to be an asset price crash in London”

    Interesting Bloomberg article. It certainly looks as if the market for high-end new builds in London is set for a big fall. I hadn’t realised quite how much of current housebuilding is aimed at overseas buyers: which of course means building aimed at UK buyers is proportionately diminished.

    As you say, how much of the effect will ripple beyond London is hard to know. The problem is, our huge and growing balance of payment deficit is only made sustainable by large capital inflows – foreign individuals and companies buying assets here. If that inflow reverses, then we have an old-fashioned balance of payments crisis and the pound falls. Encouraging more foreigners to get out of UK assets while they can which turns the sterling fall into a crash…

  2. Toh, thanks for that sentiment. I only came out about six years ago and acceptance that I was equal in the eyes of the state regarding marriage helped me feel valued as a new out person. When you come out you can loose so much, friends, family, so not loosing the right to marry does matter.

    I hope that you will agree with me one day that the good done for many outweighs the bad as you see it.

    I maintain my view that David Cameron has abandoned compassionate conservatism .

  3. Good afternoon all from what will probably be my last check-in from Westminster North for I have sold my flat in ole Giffnock (East Ren) and bought a fine little abode in sleepy ole Itchen Abbas in Hampshire.
    Gone will be the daily rattly bone crushing 10 min commute on the tube into work to be replaced with a 15 min drive into Winchester followed by a pleasant hour train commute into London Waterloo.

    Expensive commute? I only pay a 3rd of the fares so it makes perfect economic sense plus I will wake up to fresh air every morning.

    Anyway onto polling.

    Quite a good poll for Cameron but I really do think the Tories will sink in VI after the EU referendum. Cameron thinks he has a deal to sell to Euro skeptics like me but in truth he has been bought by that lot in Brussels.

    What we are seeing in the Labour party with Corby (a leader who has little support from within) will be the same for Cameron.
    I really don’t understand the whole in out vote thing from his perspective? Hold a referendum then campaign against it?

    Tick tock

  4. @ToH

    “Re Gay marriage, as I said in an earlier post probably had no effect on voting at all.”

    ———-

    I know, that’s what I was saying too. I was just considering reasons why…

  5. “An Insa poll for Focus magazine on Friday revealed that 40% of 2,047 Germans want Merkel to resign due to her refugee policy, which saw the country take in 1.1 million asylum seekers last year. The poll, which was conducted from January 22 to January 25, also showed 45.2% believed Merkel’s refugee policy was not a reason for her to resign.

    It’s pretty close in terms of who thinks she should resign or not.

    This follows closely after data, cited by Citi Research’s chief global political analyst Tina Fordham this month, that showed that Merkel’s approval ratings plunged sharply to 49% in November 2015, down from 67% in August.”

    Business Insider UK

    A lesson being learned in Sweden & Denmark it seems.

  6. THE OTHER HOWARD

    “Gay marriage probably had little or no effect on voting but the redefinition of marriage was totally unacceptable to some as i think you are already aware”
    __________

    I agree gay marriage had little or no effect on the election but like you say the “redefinition of marriage was totally unacceptable to some”

    Where I’m moving to the thought of gay marriage would probably have the entire village hissing well into the high octaves and frowns that would turn Medusa into stone.

    However my own personal view is that if two people of the same sex wish to get married then good for them but I do understand some will see it as going away from the true values of marriage and marriage itself being redefined, That I can’t possible comment on!!

  7. TOH

    “I don’t agree with CROSSBAT11 that the Tories would necessarily be in trouble if there were economic difficulties, or that they only have one issue in their favour.”

    It’s true it could go either way.

    If the Jacorbyns had any sense they’d resurrect the Vickers report on the banks in advance of what’s coming then they’d look prescient when the 30 year globalisation scam that started in Thatch’s time coming crashing down.

  8. Since you mentioned Vickers…

    Woz reading in the Times today that the so-called Google Tax has been done in such a way that it won’t actually tax Google.

    Oh and the Serious Fraud peeps lost another case against banking peeps.

    Who’dathunkit?

  9. No one has ever explained why marriage shouldn’t be redefined. I mean, voting used to summat guys did, then it was redefined as summat gals did too. What’s wrong with redefining summat to be fairer?

    Once upon a time our Christianity was defined as summat where you couldn’t get divorced. Then they redefined marriage such as you could get divorced. Etc.

  10. @ Carfrew

    The Royal Family is exempt from any act governing family affairs (at least since 1753), so I suppose it’s a relief that all those things you have mentioned do not apply for them …

  11. Good Evening All from Bournemouth East.

    LASZLO.
    Good Evening to you.
    I think your are correct to say that Labour are doing well in the heartland seats.

    The same happened in the 2015 GE There was a swing to Labour in the safe seats, but a swing away from Labour in marginal seats such as in Bolton.

    The same thing happened in 1950 and 1951.

    In 1983 Michael Foot was enthusiastically welcomed at faithful rallies, but the result was a debacle. ‘Corby’ regarded the 1983 Manifesto as too right wing on NATO.

    I think that the new Labour leadership will want to reach out beyond the members and activists if they want to win a gE.

    The 18th Brumaire analysis that non voters will go to Labour if the policies are made more left wing is flawed IMHO, but I may be wrong and time will tell

  12. @Carfrew

    No one has ever explained why marriage shouldn’t be redefined. I mean, voting used to summat guys did, then it was redefined as summat gals did too. What’s wrong with redefining summat to be fairer?

    Once upon a time our Christianity was defined as summat where you couldn’t get divorced. Then they redefined marriage such as you could get divorced. Etc.

    Quite right.

    Christians and other religious groups don’t own the concept of marriage, so it is odd they want to veto the decision of society (ie the broad support the polls demonstrate of equal marriage).

  13. Poor poll for Labour – much as expected. Not really anticipating too much to change, as I don’t feel Labour are well placed to capitalise on even very major government misfortunes.

    Of which, there may be many. Interesting to see pensions beginning to hit the press as a live issue (or maybe it isn’t). It sounds increasingly likely that Osborne is going to radically change pension tax relief in March, with promises being made of a flat rate relief. The former Lib Dem pension minister had said that a 33% flat rate could be applied on a cost neutral basis, which would effectively give a substantial boost to those on low and average pay in the 20% tax band, clawing back some of the vast sums paid in reliefs to higher rate earners.

    This would, in any logical world, be an overwhelming good thing, but the influential higher earners and their cheerleaders in the press are beginning to get hot under the collar about this. They are also mainly Tory voting, so this could be interesting. Amongst it all, there seems to be the first stirrings of realisation in the press that the new state pension reforms will be bad news for younger earners, although I don’t quite see many voters grasping how much worse off they will be in 40 years time, and even if they do, changing the way they vote today because of it.

    Europe remains the enigmatic problem for UK governments also. If the news reports are accurate, and the deal Cameron has been offered on benefits amounts to a use once only, temporary brake on in work benefits, that can only be activated in certain conditions and after all 27 member states have agreed, really doesn’t sound like a fun thing to try to explain to the UK electorate.

    If this is how the final deal looks, than Cameron will be in full Grand Old Duke of York mode, and face having to tell us why the EU is really great, after failing to meet even his pitiable weak demands.

    What fun, but still devilishly hard to see how Corbyn could make any real headway, given his baggage.

  14. @Catman

    But they have a defence!! That the change “offends” them!! And it’s bad to offend peeps, right? This seems like a quite brilliant angle, right up until a few seconds later when you realise that peeps unhappy at being left outside the marriage thing might be offended too.

    Ironically, peeps playing the offence card are nonetheless quite often against peeps being offended by a lack of “political correctness” in other contexts.

    To peeps like me of course it’s all noise to distract from the real issues, like storage, Thorium, and peeps who covet your scarf.

  15. I’d be interested to see party breakdown for that Merkel resignation stat. I wouldn’t be surprised if she’s more supported by SPD/FDP/Linke voters than by CDU peeps.

  16. @Alec

    “Europe remains the enigmatic problem for UK governments also. If the news reports are accurate, and the deal Cameron has been offered on benefits amounts to a use once only, temporary brake on in work benefits, that can only be activated in certain conditions and after all 27 member states have agreed, really doesn’t sound like a fun thing to try to explain to the UK electorate.”

    ———-

    It’s just possible the press may not try and explain that. They may just go “Cameron gets an amazing, transforming deal from Europeeps which changes everything!!” and leave it at that.

    (So long as he doesn’t annoy the press like he did over Levinson, whereupon matters of a piggly nature may resurface. Piggly matters did for Miliband too. One wonders if Corbs has any porcine skeletons…)

  17. Re gay marriage, I see in the latest poll of Anglicans, 45% said same-sex marriage was right while 37% thought it was wrong.
    The Yougov poll also indicates a large increase in support of same-sex marriage over the past three years.
    Within the general population with 56% of those polled backed gay marriage compared to 27% who opposed it.

    It is good to see that we are very much a changed, and in my opinion a much better society in respect of this issue, than we were 20 years ago.

  18. @Carfrew
    “the so-called Google Tax has been done in such a way that it won’t actually tax Google.”
    Who pays the ‘Google Tax’ anyway? Google will increase its charges to its advertisers, who will increase the price of their goods to cover that. The ‘lesser fleas’ will pay in the end. When the tax on beer goes up tuppence a pint, find me a pub that keeps the price as it was.

  19. Well drawing all the threads together – how about a YouGov German poll on gay marriage? Germany has civil unions but not marriage and Merkel is opposed to bringing it in, though I don’t know if from personal feeling or pressure from the CSU and other morally conservative parts of her Party. However the public are massively in favour 68% to 24% as reported here:

    http://www.thelocal.de/20160128/large-majority-of-germans-for-gay-marriage-marriage

    the YouGov article (in German) gives more details:

    ht tps://yougov.de/news/2016/01/28/leicht-wachsende-mehrheit-fur-legalisierung-der-ho/

    With Catholics approving 68% to 25% and Protestants by 67% to 26%[1]. Supporters of Merkel’s own CDU are 61% to 31% and Parties to the left even more so[2]. There’s no tables so we can’t see if the demographic differentials that apply in GB (eg women and the young being more in favour) are also true in Germany, but I would be surprised if not.

    It’s yet another potential problem for Merkel especially if other Parties try to introduce legislation to introduce SSM.

    [1] You need to be slightly careful about this because Germany tends to allocate people to a religion (and insists they pay taxes to support it) even if they are not regular attenders.

    [2] I assume those voting for the CDU’s sister Party in Bavaria the CSU (usually seem as more conservative) are included in those figures. There’s no separate figures given for the AfD (or indeed the FDP). It would be interesting to see the AfD figure as it would show if the rise of that Party is also driven by social conservatism as well as immigration, in the same way that UKIP’s rise in GB was.

  20. @Dave

    Yes, I see what you’re saying, however in the case of the Google Tax, Google won’t need to put up prices as they don’t actually need to pay the Google Tax, was my point. The Google Tax, is anything but.

  21. @Dave

    A much better example of what you are saying, is something not oft mentioned around these parts, or indeed any parts: the spirit-sapping storage tax. In the case of this astonishingly short-sighted tax, the costs were indeed passed on to the customers. As, indirectly, were the costs of the increased price of land and property resulting from Help-to-Buy, or “Help-to-inflate-property-prices-still-further” as it may be affectionately known by peeps who make money from such speculations.

    I think, if Corbyn should by some small miracle come to power, perhaps he might put a tax on wallpaper and see how Osborne likes that.

  22. @Dave – that isn’t the point. Ultimately, consumers have to pay all expenses of any business, as well as the profit they make.

    The real point is that Google doesn’t have to cover the same costs of Corporation Tax as other smaller competitors would have to, so therefore have an unfair market advantage.

    There is an odd blind spot within government thinking (from parties on all sides) when it comes to global corporations. They perpetually get preferential treatment, largely through their ability to off shore earnings. However, small companies are overwhelmingly more important to the UK economy than multinationals, employing far more people and paying a far higher proportion of turnover in tax, yet governments still chase after the big multi nationals as some sign of government virility.

    While I haven’t got any hard data, I also suspect the mega corporations are also economically inefficient. Apple produces gimmicky gadgets that aren’t particularly innovative, but cons a gullible public by slick marketing. Google expands largely by buying up small innovation companies. Microsoft sells not very good quality software with gaping security flaws, while much better linux based systems are available globally, free to download. I’m completely baffled as to why anyone actually buys windows, other than the power of marketing.

    I guess what I’m really saying is that I don’t believe we actually need these vast multi nationals, and so we shouldn’t tolerate governments that court them. If the companies decide to get huffy and withdraw from the UK market (which they won’t) consumers would very quickly find better alternatives.

    Fascinatingly, Nigel Lawson, a man with whom I am very rarely in agreement, has it spot on on this issue. He argues that Corporation tax has had it’s day for multi nationals, who are running rings around national governments, and that it’s time to introduce a corporate sales tax and drop the profit tax. Then at least, while custmers would ultimately still pay for this, at least things would be on a even handed basis.

  23. @Alec

    “Apple produces gimmicky gadgets that aren’t particularly innovative, but cons a gullible public by slick marketing.”

    ———–

    Now then Alec, don’t be knocking one of my fave corporate behemoths. Apple make my life notably easier…

  24. @Alec

    Also, regarding Open Source, went through this with Catman.

    Well, I say this, but actually I just quietly gave up with Catman on the matter, when he started going on about Open Source and web servers. Because I’d already acknowledged that Open Source dominates in a few areas.

    It’s all the stuff where it’s more of a nightmare that’s the issue. Try doing audio on Open Source, or indeed Android, compared to with Apple to see the difference. Even with Windows, it may have been fixed now, but it was a real pain just to get bit-perfect audio out.

    Open Source and Windows have their uses and are an excellent for peeps who like to futz around needlessly.

  25. (An excellent choice, that should be.

    Anyways, don’t mention Open Source too much or they may see another opportunity for a tax.

  26. Comres -Daily Mail – phone poll

    Con 37 Lab 32 LD 6 UKIP 12 Grn 4 SNP 4

  27. Alec,

    The biggest problem with Lawson’s proposal, as far as I can tell, is purely verbal: people generally don’t understand tax incidence, so if you call something a “corporation tax” they think that corporations pay it, whereas the moment that “sales tax” is spoken they think that customers pay it!

  28. @Bill

    He could do the decent thing, take the flak for his proposal and call it the Lawson Tax. (Like if the Storage a Tax was repealed I would be quite ok for it to be called the Carfrew Miracle).

  29. Sounds like a typical Lawsonian scheme-

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xFdfc4VnL8

  30. @Alec
    “The real point is that Google doesn’t have to cover the same costs of Corporation Tax as other smaller competitors would have to, so therefore have an unfair market advantage. ”
    I couldn’t agree more. But when the topic was discussed on Question Time this week, that point was made only by one member of the audience. The panel was in general for changes in the law, because Google is/was doing what it was allowed to do. The audience generally was concerned with the unfairness they saw in Google having access to the Chancellor and as a result paying a sum they regarded as 3% Corporation Tax while “The Tories were screwing the low paid with 20% tax” (with no mention of the tax thresholds being raised. )
    The question can’t be addressed simply, because UK tax law is horribly complicated.
    A question for polling companies: “Should tax law be greatly simplified?”

  31. The Google thing just shows how complicated the tax system is but a sales tax would probably be just as complicated and have just as many potential loopholes. If I buy something from a multinational company, over the internet, where does the sale take place? Will the tax be demonstrably different from VAT? Will all businesses pay it or only PLCs? If it is all businesses then how will micro businesses account for it, especially those not VAT registered?

    I suspect any change of this magnitude would require international agreement, if only to prevent other countries from slapping a tax on our sales to them.

    If it was easy we would probably have already done it.

  32. Bill Patrick – “The biggest problem with Lawson’s proposal, as far as I can tell, is purely verbal: people generally don’t understand tax incidence, so if you call something a “corporation tax” they think that corporations pay it, whereas the moment that “sales tax” is spoken they think that customers pay it!”

    Good point.

    But they could also call it a “revenue tax” which is the same thing, and it sounds better.

  33. RMJ1 – “If I buy something from a multinational company, over the internet, where does the sale take place? ”

    The sale takes place where the customer is, in their living room or wherever they are when they pressed purchase. That’s how VAT is levied when you purchase in the UK from an American site – and it’s easy to control because IP addresses show the location of the customer when they buy. The vending site just detects the location and applies the tax.

  34. @Candy

    The IP address isn’t visible using TOR.

    TOR, combined with Bitcoin, really messes things up.

    No wonder folk who want to control things don’t like TOR or Bitcoin.

  35. @CatManJeff

    The % of the population using Tor to avoid paying VAT/sales tax would be very small. The lost revenue would be way less than is lost through double-irish-dutch-sandwiches in corporation tax now.

  36. Candy,

    That’s some very good political marketing there. I like it!

  37. P.S Meant to add, Bitcoin isn’t a threat to govts at all, because it has a public ledger. It’s pseudonymous rather than anonymous (the person is hiding behind an address that functions like a pseudonym).

    Once an investigator has matched a person to an address, it’s a piece of cake to track exactly where the coins came from using a simple block explorer (which is publicly available). It can’t be counterfeited either.

    I believe the FBI testified to Congress that bitcoin made their lives easier – once they’ve got a warrant to search someone’s computer, they can match the person to the address and track it all back. In the SR case, they not only nailed dealers, they nailed corrupt FBI officers who had obtained bitcoins through extortion and then tried to sell them. The officers had probably been corrupt for a long time, but it wasn’t till they began to use bitcoin that they nailed them, thanks to bitcoin’s public ledger linking them to the dealers they were extorting from. You can read more about the case in the following link:

    http://edition.cnn.com/2015/03/30/politics/federal-agents-charged-with-stealing-bitcoin/

    It’s cash that’s the problem – easily counterfeited and truly anonymous. If cash is changing hands without a written record it’s impossible to track and impossible to tax.

  38. @Candy “There’s going to be an asset price crash in London”

    The Bloomberg article builds mountains of theory on comparatively thin data, much of which is wrong. The last three paragraphs must have been written last year, since they take no account of the Sterling fall this year.

    In contrast, the following day, the Evening Standard wrote http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/housing-crisis-sends-property-prices-in-londons-suburbs-soaring-to-record-level-a3168146.html

    If I was to judge which would have more effect on London property prices – 1,200 less foreign buyers (from Bloomberg) or 50,000 additional Londoners (from ONS)- I’d pick the latter.

  39. Comres -Daily Mail – phone poll
    Con 37 Lab 32 LD 6 UKIP 12 Grn 4 SNP 4

    This feels about right to me.

    :-)

  40. @CANDY,

    You have described the situation with VAT which is a tax levied on the purchaser. Presumably a sales tax would be levied on the seller – otherwise it is likely to be subject to all the various EU rules that govern VAT. Virtually all the international tax treaties would have to be rewritten. I am not saying it can’t be done but there are likely to be as many grey areas as there are now.

  41. The headline stats are for who are you inclined to support, 40/31while the stats for voting intention are 39/33. Should we not be commenting on the latter if this is to compare with other polls?

  42. While we tend to assume that VI is not affected by foreign policy, press opinion on David Cameron’s negotiations on reform of the EU, specifically in respect of migration, appear mainly to be that they are not worth having and that they are for party political purposes but do not meet public sentiment on a more generous and reational response to both refugees and economic migrants. It will be interesting to see how this pans out in any specific reforms he comes back with.

  43. CANDY
    “The % of the population using Tor to avoid paying VAT/sales tax would be very small. The lost revenue would be way less than is lost through double-irish-dutch-sandwiches in corporation tax now.”

    Moreover VAT is and has been immemoriably accepted as fair and effective taxation. The Government response to cross-party criticism of evasive but legal corporation tax practice by big corporations is to say, well Labour did not do any better while in office. I doubt it will wear.

  44. I can’t see Tor being of much use for avoiding VAT, as it’s the company that pays it, not the consumer. Companies need to know the juristiction that the sale is being made from so they can deliver, and if they were to be complicit in overt tax evasion they would be liable.

    Overall, it looks like Osborne has not helped himself on the Google tax issue, and although we now know that cameron is lobbying on behalf of tax havens within the EU, and the British government is seeking to water down EU reforms on corporate taxation, his defence in the Commons is very sound – what did Labour ever do on multinational corporate taxation?

    The EU estimates that €70B across the union is lost through failure to properly tax multinationals, which is about 0.5% of total GDP or 50% of the total EC budget. However the numbers are crunched, it’s a lot of money that would usefully be spent repairing some of the damage of the financial crash.

    We expect Tories to be very lax on bringing corporations to account, but I always feel it is to New Labour’s eternal shame that they failed to take serious action on tax havens and other forms of corporate tax abuse.

  45. YG poll on EU referendum

    https://yougov.co.uk/publicopinion/archive/

    Weighting stats look like YG has been working to include more of those not politically committed (via their 2015 vote).

    Party : Unweighted : Weighted

    Conservative 549 590
    Labour 472 486
    Liberal Democrat 140 121
    UKIP 210 208
    Green 70 61
    Other 103 95
    Didn’t vote / Don’t know 191 174

    Anthony – when will we hear about YG’s methodological changes?

  46. Colin’s suggested link is an interesting article on how Corbyn became leader. It confirms what I have been suggesting: Corbyn had no expectation of winning, has probably never considered what he would do if he became leader, and is as surprised as anyone at the outcome.

    So his leadership is not part of a left-wing ‘project’, and does not represent the culmination of a long term plan by the Left to take control.

    That was/is part of the appeal – this really was a genuine bottom-up revolution.

    But of course, it does mean that he is rather flying by the seat of his pants.

    In these circumstances, no-one can reasonably expect him to do anything other than implement the changes to the party structure and policies that his membership clearly elected him to do. After a decidedly sticky start, I suspect he is now quite enjoying himself.

    I doubt that he has any desire or expectation to be Prime Minister, and I would not be surprised to see him quit around 2018, having achieved many of his objectives, and with hero status amongst the Left. And having established a culture within the Party of a more left-wing approach, but with a new younger leader who does not have the baggage and would be more electable.

  47. ALEC

    @” his defence in the Commons is very sound – what did Labour ever do on multinational corporate taxation?”

    Most defences against this Labour Party work like that.

    But on this issue, I think that what Labour did not do will increasingly be seen by the voting public as no defence at all. Cons have to defend their own position on this, and it is indefensible at present. That there is disunity on it doesn’t help either.

    The era of trans national corporations , allied to different national tax rates, is an open goal for those of them wanting to use profit shifting. Without common purpose & legislation across tax jurisdictions they will always win.

    Perhaps CT needs to be replaced for these entities.with something else. Its a big problem.

  48. ………………I read a suggestion that , for trans national companies where origin of profit generation can be disputed, taxation of distributions rather than profits might be an idea. You still have the potential problem of differing national tax rates though.

  49. MILLIE

    @”So his leadership is not part of a left-wing ‘project’, and does not represent the culmination of a long term plan by the Left to take control.”

    To the extent that his election was an accident resulting from MPs subverting candidate selection rules, I suppose you can argue no “Left Wing Project”.

    But once he had in fact won ( and in some minds because he won,) evidence for a Left Wing play for power in the Party is not negated.

    But I agree that we await evidence of their attempts to control key Party structures-and indeed the composition of the PLP.

1 2 3