I was just looking through last month's ICM poll and I think there are more shy UKIP voters than ICM have adjusted for. Possibly more shy Tories as well. There is no way that UKIP would be close to beating Labour in Heywood and Middleton without a higher level of support than ICM are showing.
This is one case where I would love to see a poll, but I also would love for there not to be one so Labour remain complacent and UKIP get a shock victory. It's one thing for Labour to lose in a Muslim area to George Galloway/Respect but another entirely to lose in a WWC area to UKIP.
The US is a country in which the vast majority of people believe in God, but I think it strikes the balance pretty well in terms of separating church and state.
There we will have to disagree.
There are major problems with the role of religion in public and political life in the US which is doing great harm.
You only have to look at the way education is being manipulated by those with religious agendas.
For a major nation like the US to have so many people who are taught the evolution is wrong and that the Earth is 6000 years old is, to my mind, criminal.
Religious groups in the US are constantly pushing to ensure that their views are taught in school through whatever means possible - ignoring the legal ban on such activity.
@Sean_F Fanaticism is all around us, we can either force compliance on those who do not share our world view, or defeat the "idea" through logic and example. Can you fanatically defeat fascism?
Strategically, Labour now have the advantage. It just seems like are hungrier for power- united and now with a policy platform that is politically non threatening- tax a few millionaires, and do sod all else. Hardly scaring the children. On the downside there are the two Ed's of course- ergo poor leadership and economy polling.
The Tories however are desperate. Realistically, with their charismatic leader, and much better economy ratings, the election should be in the bag. But no. They are the Tories- now with an inbuilt craving for self harm. Instead of uniting and developing a broadly popular, centre ground policy framework as Labour (and Merkel has proved) which would doubtless secure them an easy victory, they are fixated with division, Europe, UKIP and now EVEL. I'm sure Cameron loathes the ground that Redwood, Fox, Patterson, Brady et al walk on. The loons are destroying any hope for a Tory victory. The Tories are the mirror image of Labour in the 70's and 80's- a desperate, relatively sensible leadership undermined by it's militants.
Labour has a strategy? Blimey. Someone ought to tell them.
SeanF - Labour's apparent pandering to Scotland may not be helping it in Wales. In some ways England and Wales may be converging politically but economically much of Wales is very different to the wealthier parts of England. The age profile in Wales may be helping the Tories and Ukip.
I should have been clearer. The fact that Wales is poorer than England gives it a left-wing slant. But, that left-wing slant is far less pronounced than it was in the days when Wales was dominated first by the Liberals, and then by Labour.
In economic terms purely, NE England is probably the best analogy I can think of. Of course NE England does not have a fifth of the population who can speak a language (and over a quarter who can understand) other than English, or a separate cultural identity and history in the same way that Wales does (strong though it is of itself, I'm sure). I have no idea what the demographics are in the NE but the last census also revealed that only 72% or so of the Welsh populous was born in Wales (20% in England, 8% elsewhere from memory. Think the Welsh born figure was 75% in 2001 so a big move in 10 years), which would imply incomers are older than the average Welsh born populace too, and probably therefore (I have no evidence) making them a bit more "righty" if they follow the general UK trends.
SeanF - Labour's apparent pandering to Scotland may not be helping it in Wales. In some ways England and Wales may be converging politically but economically much of Wales is very different to the wealthier parts of England. The age profile in Wales may be helping the Tories and Ukip.
I should have been clearer. The fact that Wales is poorer than England gives it a left-wing slant. But, that left-wing slant is far less pronounced than it was in the days when Wales was dominated first by the Liberals, and then by Labour.
In some ways there is a lot of small 'c' conservatism in Wales, so you might wonder why the Tories have never done better. Some blame this for the apparent lack of a risk taking enterprise culture.
SeanF - Labour's apparent pandering to Scotland may not be helping it in Wales. In some ways England and Wales may be converging politically but economically much of Wales is very different to the wealthier parts of England. The age profile in Wales may be helping the Tories and Ukip.
I should have been clearer. The fact that Wales is poorer than England gives it a left-wing slant. But, that left-wing slant is far less pronounced than it was in the days when Wales was dominated first by the Liberals, and then by Labour.
In some ways there is a lot of small 'c' conservatism in Wales, so you might wonder why the Tories have never done better. Some blame this for the apparent lack of a risk taking enterprise culture.
Yes, think there's something in that "lack of enterprise culture", which I assume is a hangover from the days when big employers (coal, rail, steel etc) dominated the economy far more than now. I think it's changing very slowly, but don't expect free market Tories to be carried shoulder high triumphant into Government in the Assembly anytime soon (shall we say).
Labour clearly have no idea how they will actually set the "mansion tax" up and actually identify houses that are worth £2m or more.
Yesterday Burnham made a complete idiot of himself in all interviews claiming they would use the Land Registry system, which of course only covers sold prices. Andrew Neil found it pretty hard not to laugh at his lack of knowledge.
Now today Miliband is talking about using the same system that the government uses when properties are put into company shells. Once again this based upon a sale and purchase process. There may well be 70,000 properties worth more than £2m across the UK, but the number where there's a real recorded actual value Labour can tax is tiny.
They don't really believe that they will be implementing this policy, do they? And it's not just this policy. As many people have remarked, Labour don't look like a government-in-waiting. They look like an opposition, or a minor party, making random populist noises safe in the knowledge that they'll never have to implement any of them.
I don't think I've ever seen this before in the case where an opposition looked as though it might be in power in a few months' time.
2010?
I think all three main parties pledged not to increase VAT, but anyone with any sense would have known an increase to 20% was inevitable. "No more top-down reorganisations of the NHS". Some barmy pledge to cut IHT and "recognise marriage in the tax system" at a time when the deficit was ~£150bn?
I agree that Miliband's team are taking this sort of pre-election make believe to new heights, but it's unfortunately a trend that has long been evident in British politics. Make a few headline-grabbing but inconsequential policies. Just attention-seeking enough to set the mood music, without being consequential enough to put anyone off. It's rubbish blancmange politics.
We still have a whopping great big deficit, and no-one is saying the slightest thing about where they would find the many tens of billions needed to close it, with the minor exception of George Osborne who airily waves his hands in the air while mouthing the words "ten billion" and "welfare", but no detail at all.
The complete absence of any debate on how to cut the deficit makes a mockery of our supposed democracy. You can't make any sort of informed vote if there isn't an honest debate beforehand.
Strategically, Labour now have the advantage. It just seems like are hungrier for power- united and now with a policy platform that is politically non threatening- tax a few millionaires, and do sod all else. Hardly scaring the children. On the downside there are the two Ed's of course- ergo poor leadership and economy polling.
You couldn't be further from the truth. Power is completely off the table.
The big question is how bad will next years general election be for Labour - Poor, Desperate or Crushing.
Labour will have to fend off the Coalition on the economy and other issues, UKIP now snapping around their ankles, the backwash from an unpopular Labour administration in Wales, a resurgent SNP in Scotland and all washed down with the heady brew of the 2Ed's.
Strategically, Labour now have the advantage. It just seems like are hungrier for power- united and now with a policy platform that is politically non threatening- tax a few millionaires, and do sod all else. Hardly scaring the children. On the downside there are the two Ed's of course- ergo poor leadership and economy polling.
The Tories however are desperate. Realistically, with their charismatic leader, and much better economy ratings, the election should be in the bag. But no. They are the Tories- now with an inbuilt craving for self harm. Instead of uniting and developing a broadly popular, centre ground policy framework as Labour (and Merkel has proved) which would doubtless secure them an easy victory, they are fixated with division, Europe, UKIP and now EVEL. I'm sure Cameron loathes the ground that Redwood, Fox, Patterson, Brady et al walk on. The loons are destroying any hope for a Tory victory. The Tories are the mirror image of Labour in the 70's and 80's- a desperate, relatively sensible leadership undermined by it's militants.
A similar level of complacency seems to have gripped Ed M and his kitchen cabinet. Deluded. The polls will narrow by polling day.
Labour clearly have no idea how they will actually set the "mansion tax" up and actually identify houses that are worth £2m or more.
Yesterday Burnham made a complete idiot of himself in all interviews claiming they would use the Land Registry system, which of course only covers sold prices. Andrew Neil found it pretty hard not to laugh at his lack of knowledge.
Now today Miliband is talking about using the same system that the government uses when properties are put into company shells. Once again this based upon a sale and purchase process. There may well be 70,000 properties worth more than £2m across the UK, but the number where there's a real recorded actual value Labour can tax is tiny.
They don't really believe that they will be implementing this policy, do they? And it's not just this policy. As many people have remarked, Labour don't look like a government-in-waiting. They look like an opposition, or a minor party, making random populist noises safe in the knowledge that they'll never have to implement any of them.
I don't think I've ever seen this before in the case where an opposition looked as though it might be in power in a few months' time.
2010?
I think all three main parties pledged not to increase VAT, but anyone with any sense would have known an increase to 20% was inevitable. "No more top-down reorganisations of the NHS". Some barmy pledge to cut IHT and "recognise marriage in the tax system" at a time when the deficit was ~£150bn?
I agree that Miliband's team are taking this sort of pre-election make believe to new heights, but it's unfortunately a trend that has long been evident in British politics. Make a few headline-grabbing but inconsequential policies. Just attention-seeking enough to set the mood music, without being consequential enough to put anyone off. It's rubbish blancmange politics.
We still have a whopping great big deficit, and no-one is saying the slightest thing about where they would find the many tens of billions needed to close it, with the minor exception of George Osborne who airily waves his hands in the air while mouthing the words "ten billion" and "welfare", but no detail at all.
The complete absence of any debate on how to cut the deficit makes a mockery of our supposed democracy. You can't make any sort of informed vote if there isn't an honest debate beforehand.
Very true. The real fun and games starts post budget in June if Miliband wins with only 35% of the vote on a 60% turnout with a majority of 20, Mckluskey presents his shopping list, and Balls says "there really is no money, so a few headline grabbers aside (mansion tax etc), the cuts go on more or less as planned by G Osborne, because otherwise the bond market will run us out of town, and then we really are off to the races....."
Strategically, Labour now have the advantage. It just seems like are hungrier for power- united and now with a policy platform that is politically non threatening- tax a few millionaires, and do sod all else. Hardly scaring the children. On the downside there are the two Ed's of course- ergo poor leadership and economy polling.
You couldn't be further from the truth. Power is completely off the table.
The big question is how bad will next years general election be for Labour - Poor, Desperate or Crushing.
Labour will have to fend off the Coalition on the economy and other issues, UKIP now snapping around their ankles, the backwash from an unpopular Labour administration in Wales, a resurgent SNP in Scotland and all washed down with the heady brew of the 2Ed's.
It's a formula for catastrophe.
Ah. Nicely put. That's put me in a better mood for lunch. I'll remove my rose-tinted spectacles in a few hours, I think, but for now I feel greatly cheered.
Still exasperated that Ed decided to gamble on a noteless speech.
At this stage!
Aarrrgggghhhh! Dammit!
pointless gamble - as no up side to doing it. We already know he can pull off this little trick. What he actually showed is he can't as forgot parts of it. Who the hell is advising the guy?
Under the theory of evolution most of PB would have ended up in Arnold Schwarzenegger's cooking pot, with Arnold Einstein picking over the bones. How do PBers reconcile theory and practise?
Strategically, Labour now have the advantage. It just seems like are hungrier for power- united and now with a policy platform that is politically non threatening- tax a few millionaires, and do sod all else. Hardly scaring the children. On the downside there are the two Ed's of course- ergo poor leadership and economy polling.
The Tories however are desperate. Realistically, with their charismatic leader, and much better economy ratings, the election should be in the bag. But no. They are the Tories- now with an inbuilt craving for self harm. Instead of uniting and developing a broadly popular, centre ground policy framework as Labour (and Merkel has proved) which would doubtless secure them an easy victory, they are fixated with division, Europe, UKIP and now EVEL. I'm sure Cameron loathes the ground that Redwood, Fox, Patterson, Brady et al walk on. The loons are destroying any hope for a Tory victory. The Tories are the mirror image of Labour in the 70's and 80's- a desperate, relatively sensible leadership undermined by it's militants.
A similar level of complacency seems to have gripped Ed M and his kitchen cabinet. Deluded. The polls will narrow by polling day.
They won't. They will widen considerably: in the Conservatives' favour.
@OblitusSumMe - In 2009, at the equivalent stage, the Conservatives were buzzing with ideas and holding seminars and announcing what they would do - there was a palpable sense of preparation for power. And indeed the various ministers hit the ground running (except arguably Liam Fox in Defence). The same has been true in previous elections where it looked as though a change was on the cards. I just don't get that sense at all with Labour now; they seem to be going through the motions, but don't look as though they really believe it.
@OblitusSumMe - In 2009, at the equivalent stage, the Conservatives were buzzing with ideas and holding seminars and announcing what they would do - there was a palpable sense of preparation for power. And indeed the various ministers hit the ground running (except arguably Liam Fox in Defence). The same has been true in previous elections where it looked as though a change was on the cards. I just don't get that sense at all with Labour now; they seem to be going through the motions, but don't look as though they really believe it.
Strategically, Labour now have the advantage. It just seems like are hungrier for power- united and now with a policy platform that is politically non threatening- tax a few millionaires, and do sod all else. Hardly scaring the children. On the downside there are the two Ed's of course- ergo poor leadership and economy polling.
The Tories however are desperate. Realistically, with their charismatic leader, and much better economy ratings, the election should be in the bag. But no. They are the Tories- now with an inbuilt craving for self harm. Instead of uniting and developing a broadly popular, centre ground policy framework as Labour (and Merkel has proved) which would doubtless secure them an easy victory, they are fixated with division, Europe, UKIP and now EVEL. I'm sure Cameron loathes the ground that Redwood, Fox, Patterson, Brady et al walk on. The loons are destroying any hope for a Tory victory. The Tories are the mirror image of Labour in the 70's and 80's- a desperate, relatively sensible leadership undermined by it's militants.
You are right that their is a threat to the Tories from infighting, as well as one from pursuing Europe and EV4EL to the point of nerdery. However yesterday's risible performance in Manchester has left an open goal for the Tories: they can relentlessly pursue Labour on the grounds of economic credibility, which Labour lacks in spades. The economy is the premier issue and the Labour leader didn't even mention it; he is also utterly blase about immigration.
Voters as a whole have a knack of sussing out politicians whose ideas lack credibility. That was evident in the independence referendum - a romantic ideal which doesn't make practical sense. It was also evident in the AV referendum and from the performance of various LOTOs over the years: Foot, Kinnock, Hague, IDS. I expect that Miliband's name will be added to that list in due course.
Back to the nonsense that is the mansion tax, this was on the beeb: That threshold would also rise in line with rising house prices, so homeowners would not be dragged into the tax as a result of their existing home rising in value. So as well as the problems already discussed (and this may have already been raised on PB), it has to somehow manage differential price rises in different parts of the country. Alternatively if your house is on the list, it's on the list, and it's there forevermore. Oh dearie, dearie me.
Think back to the changes undergone in Islington and Notting Hill over the last two decades (changes which are by no-means unusual or restricted to London).
PB is at its absolute worst when discussing complex child abuse cases. Ill-informed people making I intemperate, unguarded and sometimes libellous comments about a desperately sensitive subject they know too little about.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing indeed.
Of course there is. Connect the dots: Labour-political correctness-ethnic minorities-child abuse
Are you being sarcastic or are you suggesting a causal link between ethnicity and child abuse?
Rexel, no-one is interested in your PC mad world any longer, just grow up and admit that multiculturalism has failed. Not only that, but that it has failed through no fault of the British public, apart from those obsessed with PC.
Or are you another that thinks the ONE THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED victims of Rotherham are collateral damage.
I can readily accept a causal relationship between "political correctness" and the failure to stop child abuse in Rotherham. Some in position to decide whether to investigate and prosecute valued their careers above the victims and not wishing to offend the explicit or implicit expectations of their bosses they did nothing. The offenders then realised they could offend without fear and the problem spiralled. Whether it was "political correctness" per se or a more specific intent not to antagonise a bloc vote of voters is worth debate.
I also think that the ethnicity of the great majority of the offenders is unarguable in the Rotherham case. But that is not the same as saying a given ethnic group is predisposed to abuse children - the shame of Rotherham is that so many are now doing exactly what the authorities did: seeing the problem solely in racial terms. Projecting the behaviour of a group of lawless men in Rotherham onto a whole ethnic group is as nonsensical as projecting the behaviour of ISIS into every adherent of Islam
I agree, but is anyone seriously saying it is innate rather than circumstantial for Pakistani heritage Muslims to be the perpetrators?
People who who are separated from other ways of life and protected by being in favour with those in power can get away with stuff that they shouldn't. It's abuse of power
In the 70s it was celebrites and Djs, in the 21st century it is Asian Muslims . I don't see much difference between the two logically.
You could throw in rich white men and underage girls in Thailand, it's much the same thing
I have read this blog for a while now though I do not bet. In view of Labour's Mansion Tax proposal I am amazed at the lack of thought on this. I was involved in the re-valuation in Wales which required Surveyors to individually assess each property and for the valuation office to process the new values and notify each owner and afford a right of appeal. The process was time consuming and expensive. Reading some of the blogs their seems to be an impression that the properties only need to be appraised at £2m plus but the tax is on a sliding upward scale so the appraisal will need to specify whether it is £2m, £3m,£10m, £100m etc. The time required for this could be two to three years and for labour to say the tax will arrive in the treasury from day 1 is unbelievable. Having listened to various labour politicians struggle with even the basic knowledge of how various policies would be implemented it leaves the question open as to how much though goes into their policies or do they think they will win the election just with popular sound bites.
Still exasperated that Ed decided to gamble on a noteless speech.
At this stage!
Aarrrgggghhhh! Dammit!
Learning a speech off by heart and/or ad-libbing can be very effective.
Unless it results in vacuous rubbish, delivered with ditchwater dreariness and which omits the single most important point: the deficit that Labour created. The Conservatives will hammer him on this.
And then he omitted the second point vexing a key part of the electorate: immigration.
He only got the job by being a snake. He is utter rubbish and will crash to election defeat.
Under the theory of evolution most of PB would have ended up in Arnold Schwarzenegger's cooking pot, with Arnold Einstein picking over the bones. How do PBers reconcile theory and practise?
That's a lot of ignornace to cram into a few lines. Well done. Are you from Arkansas?
Strategically, Labour now have the advantage. It just seems like are hungrier for power- united and now with a policy platform that is politically non threatening- tax a few millionaires, and do sod all else. Hardly scaring the children.
"Families lose child benefit so empty rooms can get handouts"
For all the talk of millionaires, this one actually touches ordinary working people.
If Osborne lifts the Child Benefit cap, Labour are left high and dry.
Under the theory of evolution most of PB would have ended up in Arnold Schwarzenegger's cooking pot, with Arnold Einstein picking over the bones. How do PBers reconcile theory and practise?
"Another curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." (Jacques Monod).
I think you think you are cleverer than you actually are.
1. The election was closer than we thought and the SNP blew it. In Kinnock fashion Salmond's attitude in the last 2 weeks wound up enough people to ensure a massive turnout by his opponents.
2. Labour's election team need new leadership. They were frankly hopeless in Scotland. If this carries onto the general election they may well lose it.
3. Facebook elections are hear to stay. Much of this campaign was fought on Facebook. People were targeted, pushed and harangued with a big impact on the young vote. My son who is both of strong mind and a No supporter was hit with a torrent of abuse for suggesting that some of Salmond's ideas were not well thought out. Many of his friends in Glasgow who were not convinced about the Yes campaign just stayed at home. In Glasgow and Dundee some of the lower turnouts may have been caused by this.
4. SNP took a gamble and deserted some of its old supporters to pick up the Labour voters. This will reshape the party. No longer is their core vote rural but instead the inner city poor.
5. The Tory decline in Scotland has probably reached the bottom. Ruth Davidson was impressive and the Tories are regaining strength in the countryside and the wealthy suburbs.
What I found most interesting is that the areas where the Tories used to have seats, in Perthshire, Aberdeenshire , Angus, the borders and the posh parts of Edinburgh were all strongly no. Most of the local populations in these areas have not voted Tory for a long time but they were against independence and, I think, disconcerted by the leftward swing of the SNP, something that is likely to accelerate under Sturgeon. There is an opportunity for the Tories here but whether an ossified and very old party can seize it is another issue. They need to start with the activist data base of BT.
Cameron will be pressured into dealing with the English question which I suspect will leave many Scots disillusioned. They expected to be the centre of attention after the the vows pre-referendum but that won't happen now.
I have yet to meet a Scot who thinks it is sensible for Scottish MPs to vote on devolved matters in England. Not one.
Scots just want to be treated fairly. That means that they get a proportionate say on UK matters (so no cutting of representation) and they want Barnett consequentials not to have an effect on their budgets as such by giving the English the same right to allocate their money on devolved matters that the Scottish Parliament has. It's really not much to ask and eminently doable.
Still exasperated that Ed decided to gamble on a noteless speech.
At this stage!
Aarrrgggghhhh! Dammit!
pointless gamble - as no up side to doing it. We already know he can pull off this little trick. What he actually showed is he can't as forgot parts of it. Who the hell is advising the guy?
The noteless speech wandering around the stage was an electrifying gimmick when Cameron invented it, but it is now old hat.
A properly prepared speech would have been far better. Apart from a few (Andy Burnham, Liz Kendall) the shadow cabinet are a disaster. Ed Balls speech on how he was going to ramp up austerity was as ludicrous as it was badly received.
Labour is looking like a party that wants to lose, but is accidentally going to win!
Back to the nonsense that is the mansion tax, this was on the beeb: That threshold would also rise in line with rising house prices, so homeowners would not be dragged into the tax as a result of their existing home rising in value. So as well as the problems already discussed (and this may have already been raised on PB), it has to somehow manage differential price rises in different parts of the country. Alternatively if your house is on the list, it's on the list, and it's there forevermore. Oh dearie, dearie me.
Think back to the changes undergone in Islington and Notting Hill over the last two decades (changes which are by no-means unusual or restricted to London).
You are right to point out the difficulties. Voters would also be wise to question how lock-solid is the commitment to increase with house prices. A whole new asset tax is being proposed here that could look mighty tempting to play about with in a few years time. I'm not desperately against the idea, but I think we need more details and some firm commitments, otherwise southern voters, who Labour desperately need, will start to smell a big rat.
I agree, but is anyone seriously saying it is innate rather than circumstantial for Pakistani heritage Muslims to be the perpetrators?
People who who are separated from other ways of life and protected by being in favour with those in power can get away with stuff that they shouldn't. It's abuse of power
In the 70s it was celebrites and Djs, in the 21st century it is Asian Muslims . I don't see much difference between the two logically.
You could throw in rich white men and underage girls in Thailand, it's much the same thing
I think what people are saying is that the heritage of the perpetrators in the cases in Oxford, Peterborough, Rotherham and in many other cities is broadly the same.
That is not to say all Pakistani Muslims are going to carry out such horrendous crimes - but that in these cases, they most certainly did.
And their backgrounds were used to avoid proper scrutiny of their behaviour for far, far, far too long.
Race/Religion were used as a reason not to ask questions, let alone investigate properly.
We cannot allow any barrier to proper policing - race, religion or any other consideration.
"That threshold would also rise in line with rising house prices, so homeowners would not be dragged into the tax as a result of their existing home rising in value."
Hasn't every Tax started out that way, which then morphs into an ever increasing net which ensnares those that were originally exempt? – It’s a pernicious Tax based on envy.
I have read this blog for a while now though I do not bet. In view of Labour's Mansion Tax proposal I am amazed at the lack of thought on this. I was involved in the re-valuation in Wales which required Surveyors to individually assess each property and for the valuation office to process the new values and notify each owner and afford a right of appeal. The process was time consuming and expensive. Reading some of the blogs their seems to be an impression that the properties only need to be appraised at £2m plus but the tax is on a sliding upward scale so the appraisal will need to specify whether it is £2m, £3m,£10m, £100m etc. The time required for this could be two to three years and for labour to say the tax will arrive in the treasury from day 1 is unbelievable. Having listened to various labour politicians struggle with even the basic knowledge of how various policies would be implemented it leaves the question open as to how much though goes into their policies or do they think they will win the election just with popular sound bites.
Popular sound bites? Blatant lies.
Mansion Tax pouring into the Treasury on Day One is a case in point.
1. The election was closer than we thought and the SNP blew it. In Kinnock fashion Salmond's attitude in the last 2 weeks wound up enough people to ensure a massive turnout by his opponents.
2. Labour's election team need new leadership. They were frankly hopeless in Scotland. If this carries onto the general election they may well lose it.
3. Facebook elections are hear to stay. Much of this campaign was fought on Facebook. People were targeted, pushed and harangued with a big impact on the young vote. My son who is both of strong mind and a No supporter was hit with a torrent of abuse for suggesting that some of Salmond's ideas were not well thought out. Many of his friends in Glasgow who were not convinced about the Yes campaign just stayed at home. In Glasgow and Dundee some of the lower turnouts may have been caused by this.
4. SNP took a gamble and deserted some of its old supporters to pick up the Labour voters. This will reshape the party. No longer is their core vote rural but instead the inner city poor.
5. The Tory decline in Scotland has probably reached the bottom. Ruth Davidson was impressive and the Tories are regaining strength in the countryside and the wealthy suburbs.
What I found most interesting is that the areas where the Tories used to have seats, in Perthshire, Aberdeenshire , Angus, the borders and the posh parts of Edinburgh were all strongly no. Most of the local populations in these areas have not voted Tory for a long time but they were against independence and, I think, disconcerted by the leftward swing of the SNP, something that is likely to accelerate under Sturgeon. There is an opportunity for the Tories here but whether an ossified and very old party can seize it is another issue. They need to start with the activist data base of BT.
Cameron will be pressured into dealing with the English question which I suspect will leave many Scots disillusioned. They expected to be the centre of attention after the the vows pre-referendum but that won't happen now.
I have yet to meet a Scot who thinks it is sensible for Scottish MPs to vote on devolved matters in England. Not one.
Indeed - and the SNP have long recused themselves from voting on 'English' matters in Westminster - so its ONLY Labour holding out on a simple matter of 'fairness'......
@DavidL - I also noticed that. My takeaway was that the Tories may be moribund in Scotland, but the centre-right isn't.
Do you have a view on any pick-ups for May 2015? My view is that only D,C&T (hold) and B,R&S (gain) and WA&K (gain) are likely.
I think Dumfries and Galloway is a possible gain if there is any fall back in the Scottish Labour vote post Gordon. There are some more outside chances (such as NEF and Moray) but I agree that is probably going to be it.
Strategically, Labour now have the advantage. It just seems like are hungrier for power- united and now with a policy platform that is politically non threatening- tax a few millionaires, and do sod all else. Hardly scaring the children. On the downside there are the two Ed's of course- ergo poor leadership and economy polling.
The Tories however are desperate. Realistically, with their charismatic leader, and much better economy ratings, the election should be in the bag. But no. They are the Tories- now with an inbuilt craving for self harm. Instead of uniting and developing a broadly popular, centre ground policy framework as Labour (and Merkel has proved) which would doubtless secure them an easy victory, they are fixated with division, Europe, UKIP and now EVEL. I'm sure Cameron loathes the ground that Redwood, Fox, Patterson, Brady et al walk on. The loons are destroying any hope for a Tory victory. The Tories are the mirror image of Labour in the 70's and 80's- a desperate, relatively sensible leadership undermined by it's militants.
A similar level of complacency seems to have gripped Ed M and his kitchen cabinet. Deluded. The polls will narrow by polling day.
They won't. They will widen considerably: in the Conservatives' favour.
I expect the Conservatives to finish up ahead in terms of vote share. It remains to be seen if that results in a lead in terms of seats.
Going for the 30% who voted Labour in 2010 plus 25-30% of 2010's Lib Dems might seem enough to get elected, but at the same time, the SNP, UKIP, and Greens are chipping away at that 30%
@isam Why does it feel like it is all your fault? Do you have a deep seated sense of insecurity that causes you to feel threatened by cartoons? Issue a fatwa against the cartoonist perhaps? ;-)
All the policies in the above bar chart involve some combination of more tax and spending other people's money or are just unachievable waffle, with the possible exception of devolving power to the regions, which may be achievable, but is still just waffle at the moment, and IMHO a crap idea anyway.
The fact that people fall for it in such large numbers is profoundly depressing. Surely labour can't win? Surely??
@DavidL - I also noticed that. My takeaway was that the Tories may be moribund in Scotland, but the centre-right isn't.
Do you have a view on any pick-ups for May 2015? My view is that only D,C&T (hold) and B,R&S (gain) and WA&K (gain) are likely.
I think Dumfries and Galloway is a possible gain if there is any fall back in the Scottish Labour vote post Gordon. There are some more outside chances (such as NEF and Moray) but I agree that is probably going to be it.
Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk must surely be a good prospect for the Conservatives.
1. The election was closer than we thought and the SNP blew it. In Kinnock fashion Salmond's attitude in the last 2 weeks wound up enough people to ensure a massive turnout by his opponents.
2. Labour's election team need new leadership. They were frankly hopeless in Scotland. If this carries onto the general election they may well lose it.
3. Facebook elections are hear to stay. Much of this campaign was fought on Facebook. People were targeted, pushed and harangued with a big impact on the young vote. My son who is both of strong mind and a No supporter was hit with a torrent of abuse for suggesting that some of Salmond's ideas were not well thought out. Many of his friends in Glasgow who were not convinced about the Yes campaign just stayed at home. In Glasgow and Dundee some of the lower turnouts may have been caused by this.
4. SNP took a gamble and deserted some of its old supporters to pick up the Labour voters. This will reshape the party. No longer is their core vote rural but instead the inner city poor.
5. The Tory decline in Scotland has probably reached the bottom. Ruth Davidson was impressive and the Tories are regaining strength in the countryside and the wealthy suburbs.
Th reported doubling of SNP membership over the last week or so will have interesting effects, as most will be ex SLAB in places like Glasgow. It should see off the Tartan Tories tag, but what is gained from Labour may well be lost elsewhere...
That is my feeling. One of the untold stories of the referendum is how they lost the North East.
Picked up the Irish Catholic vote but lost the Protestant?
"I heard last week from a pupil at the largest Catholic secondary school in Scotland, Holyrood in Glasgow, that many teachers were completely open with pupils about their pro-independence views."
"On Thursday I am firmly convinced that most Catholics flocked to support a cause which viewed Britain in the most negative and demeaning terms. It was a poor way to repay a country which helped them to journey from the margins to the mainstream of society. Their Church in particular showed little statesmanship or even common sense"
I should think that in Glasgow, at any rate, there was a strong correlation between religious affiliation and voting.
Anecdata.....my Scottish Facebook lifelong Glasgow Labour converter to the SNP is Catholic, the Unionists protestant.....
I agree, but is anyone seriously saying it is innate rather than circumstantial for Pakistani heritage Muslims to be the perpetrators?
People who who are separated from other ways of life and protected by being in favour with those in power can get away with stuff that they shouldn't. It's abuse of power
In the 70s it was celebrites and Djs, in the 21st century it is Asian Muslims . I don't see much difference between the two logically.
You could throw in rich white men and underage girls in Thailand, it's much the same thing
I think what people are saying is that the heritage of the perpetrators in the cases in Oxford, Peterborough, Rotherham and in many other cities is broadly the same.
That is not to say all Pakistani Muslims are going to carry out such horrendous crimes - but that in these cases, they most certainly did.
And their backgrounds were used to avoid proper scrutiny of their behaviour for far, far, far too long.
Race/Religion were used as a reason not to ask questions, let alone investigate properly.
We cannot allow any barrier to proper policing - race, religion or any other consideration.
I agree, but I don't think anyone is saying, or even implying that there is something about Pakistani Muslims that makes them do this. Of course that would be the definition of racism
It's the fear of being seen to be racist, on the back of allowing ghettos of isolated communities to grow by allowing mass immigration that caused it, and that is what people attack
Attacking that isn't being racist, but gets denounced as such by stubborn people who have held uber left wing beliefs for too long to know right from wrong
"A mansion tax proposal has more holes than a sieve. It doesn’t raise money, it loses it – for everyone, and would damage aspiration, home ownership, and personal wealth. It would be seen as an attack on the property industry, damaging construction, jobs and money.
Over breakfast, just thinking through the likely course of implementation of a mansion tax came this. Some classic avoidance, exception and arbitrage techniques which might come to bear in the fictional world of Ed Miliband’s Labour government. Bricks & mortar may be static, ownership, division of wealth and occupation in a home are not...."
Miliband is getting panned from all quarters. Lead on Sky News, BBC and even the left are lashing him.
Quite extraordinary. I'm trying to recall the last time a leader took such a panning for their conference speech?
Its difficult to think that weird Ed could have done much different.
The lack of policy and the deliberate not mentioning of debt/deficeit, immigration meant he was always going to give a low signal to noise speech. His personality and character, typified by his running away in Scotland also meant he wasnt going to give a tub thumping speach to really gee up and rally the true believers.
However, he faces a real problem. Its not too bad being called weird Ed, because, well, its true. But he has to be careful that this derision doesn't turn to scorn. If weird Ed turns into a public laughing stock, a figure of fun, a loony David Icke then its all over.
He wont be able to hide during a GE campaign and the laughing will only get louder.
Mr. Dave, I think that's an indefensible position. You're arguing for devolution for all Scotland, for all Wales, but for England to be carved into pieces. I don't care about decentralisation or regional authorities, I do not want my country to be cut into little shitty regions.
How can you defend a single Scottish Parliament and oppose the same for England?
Iirc the Cornish want their own separate assembly (and a chunk of them claim themselves as a nation).
But the main reason is the idea of a destabilizing dominance. That you'd end up with an English parliament dictating everything.
How practically would this happen? We would have set powers for the UK and home national levels. On devolved matters like education, England couldn't dominate anyone else, because it would be devolved. On UK matters like economic policy and foreign policy, it would be exactly the same as now. This idea of England dominating if it had its own parliament just isn't thought through.
Spending levels.
That's not an explanation.
That a devolved England would essentially dictate the size of the budgets for education and other devolved matters.
It's high time to debunk one of Mike's favourite fall-backs, as trotted by SeanF below, the 2010 Lab-LibDem switchers, but instead of a long piece I'm going to cut to the chase:
Less than 1% of the electorate are members of the three main political parties. In this fast-moving technological and social savvy age where people treat world affairs like a pick n' mix supermarket, and past 'allegiances' mean virtually nothing, 99% of the electorate are floating voters.
Interesting that women not wearing a headscarf when outside would be assumed to be loose and immoral as late as the 50's/60's in Britain. Of course, in that case, it was cultural and not religious.
The Burkha/Niqab is not religious.
It's entirely cultural. The first usage became common in the 1890s when the UK was the dominant power in Egypt.
British soldiers regarded it as an unacceptable infringement of a woman's liberty, so banned the wearing of the veil.
Of course this just encouraged its adoption.
But it was, and remains today, an explicit statement of a rejection of Western values. But not a religious mandate.
This morning a major damage limitation operation is underway here in Manchester. Shadow cabinet ministers, MPs and spin doctors are fanning out to try to salvage something from the wreckage. It was a wide-ranging speech. These things happen. We should look at the broader themes, the bigger picture.
No, we shouldn’t. What we should look at is the fact the Leader of the Opposition, in his last major address to the nation that he aspires to lead, forgot – literally forgot – the single biggest issue that will confront him were he to be elected prime minister. That is not simply a minor aberration. That is a shaming, unconscionable, disgrace from someone who aspires to the highest office in the land.
It's high time to debunk one of Mike's favourite fall-backs, as trotted by SeanF below, the 2010 Lab-LibDem switchers, but instead of a long piece I'm going to cut to the chase:
Less than 1% of the electorate are members of the three main political parties. In this fast-moving technological and social savvy age where people treat world affairs like a pick n' mix supermarket, and past 'allegiances' mean virtually nothing, 99% of the electorate are floating voters.
"A mansion tax proposal has more holes than a sieve. It doesn’t raise money, it loses it – for everyone, and would damage aspiration, home ownership, and personal wealth. It would be seen as an attack on the property industry, damaging construction, jobs and money.
Over breakfast, just thinking through the likely course of implementation of a mansion tax came this. Some classic avoidance, exception and arbitrage techniques which might come to bear in the fictional world of Ed Miliband’s Labour government. Bricks & mortar may be static, ownership, division of wealth and occupation in a home are not...."
No, the trouble with the mansion tax is the number of newspaper editors and television executives with £2 million houses.
Interesting that women not wearing a headscarf when outside would be assumed to be loose and immoral as late as the 50's/60's in Britain. Of course, in that case, it was cultural and not religious.
The Burkha/Niqab is not religious.
It's entirely cultural. The first usage became common in the 1890s when the UK was the dominant power in Egypt.
British soldiers regarded it as an unacceptable infringement of a woman's liberty, so banned the wearing of the veil.
Of course this just encouraged its adoption.
But it was, and remains today, an explicit statement of a rejection of Western values. But not a religious mandate.
On reflection, people wore hats, far more commonly in the 1950s than today, but that's really a matter of fashion.
I'm assuming he could turn up outside a few pads in London and be confident within 5 mins it was worth over £2M given registered sales for the same street.
That's not enough: it's a percentage based tax, so they need a view on value not just a threshold.
Mr. Dave, I think that's an indefensible position. You're arguing for devolution for all Scotland, for all Wales, but for England to be carved into pieces. I don't care about decentralisation or regional authorities, I do not want my country to be cut into little shitty regions.
How can you defend a single Scottish Parliament and oppose the same for England?
Iirc the Cornish want their own separate assembly (and a chunk of them claim themselves as a nation).
But the main reason is the idea of a destabilizing dominance. That you'd end up with an English parliament dictating everything.
How practically would this happen? We would have set powers for the UK and home national levels. On devolved matters like education, England couldn't dominate anyone else, because it would be devolved. On UK matters like economic policy and foreign policy, it would be exactly the same as now. This idea of England dominating if it had its own parliament just isn't thought through.
Spending levels.
That's not an explanation.
That a devolved England would essentially dictate the size of the budgets for education and other devolved matters.
How, Mr. Corporeal? You have lost me on this. Treasury functions would be decided at the UK level. Each of the 4 assembles would be given the cash for devolved matters as decided by the UK parliament. How they spend that money would be for them them to decide. So how would an English parliament have any say on the budgets of the others?
@DavidL - I also noticed that. My takeaway was that the Tories may be moribund in Scotland, but the centre-right isn't.
Do you have a view on any pick-ups for May 2015? My view is that only D,C&T (hold) and B,R&S (gain) and WA&K (gain) are likely.
I think Dumfries and Galloway is a possible gain if there is any fall back in the Scottish Labour vote post Gordon. There are some more outside chances (such as NEF and Moray) but I agree that is probably going to be it.
Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk must surely be a good prospect for the Conservatives.
Yes Casino Royale had already identified that one. Unless there is a major Lib Dem recovery this would look pretty nailed on and the No vote there will have confirmed it since it should reduce seepage to the SNP.
This valuation debate seems very thin grounds on which to challenge the Mansion Tax... A couple of days playing with Land Registry data and a list of properties could be created to which to send a letter: "We believe your poetry to be worth £2m on the open market and will be taxing it as such from next year... If you wish to appeal..."
Well, if you really believe that is a fair way to run a taxation system, you have some very strange ideas.
The state cannot and should not make assumptions and use them as the basis for taxation.
A Mansion Tax - whilst manifestly a bad and unfair idea - can only work with proper valuation - and regular re-valuations.
If you are basing a taxation system on current market values, you have to ensure your records reflect the value of the properties at any one time.
And that is expensive. Very expensive.
The way to do it would be to take last sale value / transfer value and then add an inflationary adjustment for every year since the last sale (say 2% flat per year).
To some extent that also addresses the problem of the widow in the large house as those typically will have been bought a long time ago.
Personally I am relieved by the speech yesterday. I expected at least a couple of absolute humdingers of new populist policies to leave us righties floundering to frame a response. What we got instead was pretty standard labour. No game changers. Missed opportunity.
I have read this blog for a while now though I do not bet. In view of Labour's Mansion Tax proposal I am amazed at the lack of thought on this. I was involved in the re-valuation in Wales which required Surveyors to individually assess each property and for the valuation office to process the new values and notify each owner and afford a right of appeal. The process was time consuming and expensive. Reading some of the blogs their seems to be an impression that the properties only need to be appraised at £2m plus but the tax is on a sliding upward scale so the appraisal will need to specify whether it is £2m, £3m,£10m, £100m etc. The time required for this could be two to three years and for labour to say the tax will arrive in the treasury from day 1 is unbelievable. Having listened to various labour politicians struggle with even the basic knowledge of how various policies would be implemented it leaves the question open as to how much though goes into their policies or do they think they will win the election just with popular sound bites.
Yes, BigG.
It is Election fodder, and has nothing to do with sound finance, good taxation, or fairness.
Personally I am relieved by the speech yesterday. I expected at least a couple of absolute humdingers of new populist policies to leave us righties floundering to frame a response. What we got instead was pretty standard labour. No game changers. Missed opportunity.
I was really replying to oxfordsimon - who believes the theory of evolution should overrule Christian belief. Very few people of any persuasion think the earth was created 6000 years ago, the comment was made only to devalue Christians. The theory of evolution led to staggering numbers of deaths in the last century, Christianity not so much.
Labour clearly have no idea how they will actually set the "mansion tax" up and actually identify houses that are worth £2m or more.
Yesterday Burnham made a complete idiot of himself in all interviews claiming they would use the Land Registry system, which of course only covers sold prices. Andrew Neil found it pretty hard not to laugh at his lack of knowledge.
Now today Miliband is talking about using the same system that the government uses when properties are put into company shells. Once again this based upon a sale and purchase process. There may well be 70,000 properties worth more than £2m across the UK, but the number where there's a real recorded actual value Labour can tax is tiny.
They don't really believe that they will be implementing this policy, do they? And it's not just this policy. As many people have remarked, Labour don't look like a government-in-waiting. They look like an opposition, or a minor party, making random populist noises safe in the knowledge that they'll never have to implement any of them.
I don't think I've ever seen this before in the case where an opposition looked as though it might be in power in a few months' time.
I think it's a lot simpler than you make out. Any street in which a house has sold for more than £2 million would be taxable, because houses in the same street are worth about the same.
When this doesn't raise enough money, they just apply it to more streets by lowering the threshold.
Whether it's fair or not is irrelevant - Labour perceives inflation as profit and, far from recognising that you suffer if your house price doubles (because it costs you more to relocate), thinks that this inflation is wealth that doesn't belong to you.
In effect all freeholders become leaseholders again.
I have read this blog for a while now though I do not bet. In view of Labour's Mansion Tax proposal I am amazed at the lack of thought on this. I was involved in the re-valuation in Wales which required Surveyors to individually assess each property and for the valuation office to process the new values and notify each owner and afford a right of appeal. The process was time consuming and expensive. Reading some of the blogs their seems to be an impression that the properties only need to be appraised at £2m plus but the tax is on a sliding upward scale so the appraisal will need to specify whether it is £2m, £3m,£10m, £100m etc. The time required for this could be two to three years and for labour to say the tax will arrive in the treasury from day 1 is unbelievable. Having listened to various labour politicians struggle with even the basic knowledge of how various policies would be implemented it leaves the question open as to how much though goes into their policies or do they think they will win the election just with popular sound bites.
Yes, BigG.
It is Election fodder, and has nothing to do with sound finance, good taxation, or fairness.
I honestly think that 'fairness' to Labour actually means 'spite towards Conservative voters'.
All they need do is say that the tax is payable from day 1 but will not be assessed till year 2 or 3. If you live in an expensive road you'll be sent a bill on account and you'll have to pay and reclaim it later. You deserve it, you bastard, because your house has suffered from inflation.
Comments
This is one case where I would love to see a poll, but I also would love for there not to be one so Labour remain complacent and UKIP get a shock victory. It's one thing for Labour to lose in a Muslim area to George Galloway/Respect but another entirely to lose in a WWC area to UKIP.
There are major problems with the role of religion in public and political life in the US which is doing great harm.
You only have to look at the way education is being manipulated by those with religious agendas.
For a major nation like the US to have so many people who are taught the evolution is wrong and that the Earth is 6000 years old is, to my mind, criminal.
Religious groups in the US are constantly pushing to ensure that their views are taught in school through whatever means possible - ignoring the legal ban on such activity.
Fanaticism is all around us, we can either force compliance on those who do not share our world view, or defeat the "idea" through logic and example.
Can you fanatically defeat fascism?
Miliband does have something of the IDS about him.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/sep/24/jeremy-paxman-channel-4-general-election-newsnight-bbc
Could potentially be good competition to the BBC, Channel 4 has decent politics coverage.
I think all three main parties pledged not to increase VAT, but anyone with any sense would have known an increase to 20% was inevitable. "No more top-down reorganisations of the NHS". Some barmy pledge to cut IHT and "recognise marriage in the tax system" at a time when the deficit was ~£150bn?
I agree that Miliband's team are taking this sort of pre-election make believe to new heights, but it's unfortunately a trend that has long been evident in British politics. Make a few headline-grabbing but inconsequential policies. Just attention-seeking enough to set the mood music, without being consequential enough to put anyone off. It's rubbish blancmange politics.
We still have a whopping great big deficit, and no-one is saying the slightest thing about where they would find the many tens of billions needed to close it, with the minor exception of George Osborne who airily waves his hands in the air while mouthing the words "ten billion" and "welfare", but no detail at all.
The complete absence of any debate on how to cut the deficit makes a mockery of our supposed democracy. You can't make any sort of informed vote if there isn't an honest debate beforehand.
The big question is how bad will next years general election be for Labour - Poor, Desperate or Crushing.
Labour will have to fend off the Coalition on the economy and other issues, UKIP now snapping around their ankles, the backwash from an unpopular Labour administration in Wales, a resurgent SNP in Scotland and all washed down with the heady brew of the 2Ed's.
It's a formula for catastrophe.
At this stage!
Aarrrgggghhhh! Dammit!
But, I don't it was a particularly good speech.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cartoon/2014/sep/24/first-dog-terrorism
Voters as a whole have a knack of sussing out politicians whose ideas lack credibility. That was evident in the independence referendum - a romantic ideal which doesn't make practical sense. It was also evident in the AV referendum and from the performance of various LOTOs over the years: Foot, Kinnock, Hague, IDS. I expect that Miliband's name will be added to that list in due course.
That threshold would also rise in line with rising house prices, so homeowners would not be dragged into the tax as a result of their existing home rising in value.
So as well as the problems already discussed (and this may have already been raised on PB), it has to somehow manage differential price rises in different parts of the country. Alternatively if your house is on the list, it's on the list, and it's there forevermore. Oh dearie, dearie me.
Think back to the changes undergone in Islington and Notting Hill over the last two decades (changes which are by no-means unusual or restricted to London).
People who who are separated from other ways of life and protected by being in favour with those in power can get away with stuff that they shouldn't. It's abuse of power
In the 70s it was celebrites and Djs, in the 21st century it is Asian Muslims . I don't see much difference between the two logically.
You could throw in rich white men and underage girls in Thailand, it's much the same thing
And then he omitted the second point vexing a key part of the electorate: immigration.
He only got the job by being a snake. He is utter rubbish and will crash to election defeat.
For all the talk of millionaires, this one actually touches ordinary working people.
If Osborne lifts the Child Benefit cap, Labour are left high and dry. Cameron has credibility for allowing referendums.Every part of the union wants devolution.
Will UKIP let Labour in and kill the EU referendum?
It's all about handling the process and the communication around it.
I think you think you are cleverer than you actually are.
Scots just want to be treated fairly. That means that they get a proportionate say on UK matters (so no cutting of representation) and they want Barnett consequentials not to have an effect on their budgets as such by giving the English the same right to allocate their money on devolved matters that the Scottish Parliament has. It's really not much to ask and eminently doable.
There is a well known rule about this, you know.
A properly prepared speech would have been far better. Apart from a few (Andy Burnham, Liz Kendall) the shadow cabinet are a disaster. Ed Balls speech on how he was going to ramp up austerity was as ludicrous as it was badly received.
Labour is looking like a party that wants to lose, but is accidentally going to win!
That is not to say all Pakistani Muslims are going to carry out such horrendous crimes - but that in these cases, they most certainly did.
And their backgrounds were used to avoid proper scrutiny of their behaviour for far, far, far too long.
Race/Religion were used as a reason not to ask questions, let alone investigate properly.
We cannot allow any barrier to proper policing - race, religion or any other consideration.
Hasn't every Tax started out that way, which then morphs into an ever increasing net which ensnares those that were originally exempt? – It’s a pernicious Tax based on envy.
Mansion Tax pouring into the Treasury on Day One is a case in point.
I apologise to the families of the beheaded hostages and raped children. I was born white, male, western and just plain bad
Ah the guardian, what a lovely sense of humour they have there
For some of the left media's attacks on him see here: http://order-order.com/2014/09/24/labour-supporting-columnists-have-their-say-on-eds-speech/
'Anyone who saw him could not fail to be struck by his unsuitability for high office.'
Going for the 30% who voted Labour in 2010 plus 25-30% of 2010's Lib Dems might seem enough to get elected, but at the same time, the SNP, UKIP, and Greens are chipping away at that 30%
Why does it feel like it is all your fault? Do you have a deep seated sense of insecurity that causes you to feel threatened by cartoons?
Issue a fatwa against the cartoonist perhaps? ;-)
'Having listened to various labour politicians struggle with even the basic knowledge of how various policies would be implemented it '
Why not start by calling it by its proper name a property tax,instead of pretending a three bedroom terraced house is a mansion.
The fact that people fall for it in such large numbers is profoundly depressing. Surely labour can't win? Surely??
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/revealed-secret-opinion-poll-convinced-4313922
The Dickson Tipping Point Mark 1, with updated 'Boom' software.
It's the fear of being seen to be racist, on the back of allowing ghettos of isolated communities to grow by allowing mass immigration that caused it, and that is what people attack
Attacking that isn't being racist, but gets denounced as such by stubborn people who have held uber left wing beliefs for too long to know right from wrong
http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2014/09/natalie-elphicke-the-dangers-of-milibands-mansion-tax.html
"A mansion tax proposal has more holes than a sieve. It doesn’t raise money, it loses it – for everyone, and would damage aspiration, home ownership, and personal wealth. It would be seen as an attack on the property industry, damaging construction, jobs and money.
Over breakfast, just thinking through the likely course of implementation of a mansion tax came this. Some classic avoidance, exception and arbitrage techniques which might come to bear in the fictional world of Ed Miliband’s Labour government. Bricks & mortar may be static, ownership, division of wealth and occupation in a home are not...."
The lack of policy and the deliberate not mentioning of debt/deficeit, immigration meant he was always going to give a low signal to noise speech. His personality and character, typified by his running away in Scotland also meant he wasnt going to give a tub thumping speach to really gee up and rally the true believers.
However, he faces a real problem. Its not too bad being called weird Ed, because, well, its true. But he has to be careful that this derision doesn't turn to scorn. If weird Ed turns into a public laughing stock, a figure of fun, a loony David Icke then its all over.
He wont be able to hide during a GE campaign and the laughing will only get louder.
And if that happens, labour lose.
Less than 1% of the electorate are members of the three main political parties. In this fast-moving technological and social savvy age where people treat world affairs like a pick n' mix supermarket, and past 'allegiances' mean virtually nothing, 99% of the electorate are floating voters.
It's entirely cultural. The first usage became common in the 1890s when the UK was the dominant power in Egypt.
British soldiers regarded it as an unacceptable infringement of a woman's liberty, so banned the wearing of the veil.
Of course this just encouraged its adoption.
But it was, and remains today, an explicit statement of a rejection of Western values. But not a religious mandate.
No.
To some extent that also addresses the problem of the widow in the large house as those typically will have been bought a long time ago.
Yes, BigG.
It is Election fodder, and has nothing to do with sound finance, good taxation, or fairness.
I was really replying to oxfordsimon - who believes the theory of evolution should overrule Christian belief. Very few people of any persuasion think the earth was created 6000 years ago, the comment was made only to devalue Christians. The theory of evolution led to staggering numbers of deaths in the last century, Christianity not so much.
When this doesn't raise enough money, they just apply it to more streets by lowering the threshold.
Whether it's fair or not is irrelevant - Labour perceives inflation as profit and, far from recognising that you suffer if your house price doubles (because it costs you more to relocate), thinks that this inflation is wealth that doesn't belong to you.
In effect all freeholders become leaseholders again.
All they need do is say that the tax is payable from day 1 but will not be assessed till year 2 or 3. If you live in an expensive road you'll be sent a bill on account and you'll have to pay and reclaim it later. You deserve it, you bastard, because your house has suffered from inflation.