A big win in Clacton will have impact on UKIPs chances in Rochester. If Reckless should lose he may well have a more winnable seat lined up as part of his "defection deal". When Carswell defected there was a lot of talk about him taking local activists with him. What's the news on the ground in Rochester?
I was thinking about this.
There will be a a positive impact from the mere fact that Carswell wins, if he does.
But there is unlikely to be such a margin that there is a UKIP tidal wave effect.
We shall see, of course, but as time goes by the UKIP +40 in Clacton is likely to be a high water mark. As the Tories fight local, name their candidate and we get to the point where people put an X in the box it will be chipped away. That's not to say they won't win; that seems almost certain.
Mr. Royale, does that 75 seat gain assume he holds onto all Labour's Scottish seats?
I'd be surprised if Labour weren't the largest party in Scotland after the election, but they could lose a fair number of seats.
Nope. They include the forecast Scottish losses. It's 68 gains target atm. If they drop 7 seats in Scotland to the SNP then they have to make up for those 7 in E&W, making up the 75 gains target.
UKIP survived the loss of Bob Spink and they'd survive the loss of Reckless, if it happened. It would be a big setback and would hit UKIP's momentum a lot, but it wouldn't be the end of the world for them. Frankly, given the resources the Conservative party have, it would be pretty devastating for them if they lost, given they're throwing the kitchen sink at the seat.
I thought the Farage Party had an extra £1 million to spend on pints? Oh wait, it was just a 'pledge'.
Indeed. The money's all on the Tory side, as you point out.
UKIP would flinch if they lost.
So the question is, is 2015 their big opportunity or will they get* another?
After Spink they did. Maybe next time they won't. It may well depend on the 2015 result.
* I say get, but opportunities, like in football, are partly made and partly got. You might get the tap in, but you have to be in the right place.
Mr. Royale, does that 75 seat gain assume he holds onto all Labour's Scottish seats?
I'd be surprised if Labour weren't the largest party in Scotland after the election, but they could lose a fair number of seats.
It's going to be a fun election in Scotland sort of musical chairs with electors.
If Labour attack the Tories heavily they simply undermine the Union even further and see Surgeon pick up more of the leftish voters who will vote to leave. Paradoxically they need the Tories to do well by picking up righties who vote SNP but who are now disquieted by an SNP lurch further left.
The SNP will use the Tory bogeyman to attack Labour as their little helpers but in doing so might just scare off some of their previous supporters however the big gains are to be made in places like Glasgow and stealing Labour's voters.
The Tories need to make themselves more local but if they play their cards right can pick up a few seats in rural areas.
The LDs just need to batten down the hatches and survive as everyone is after their lunch.
Mr. Royale, ah, cheers. I wonder if Labour might not lose more than seven seats, though. Their voters are often apathetic, but the new converts to the SNP will still be fired up to go out and vote.
Mr. Brooke, indeed, one suspects it won't be the rather dull result of 2010.
Perhaps Ukip should change their candidate - Farage to stand and win ?
Win - Lose all those lovely EU allowances, and be required to account for his expenses.
Lose - Look like an utter chump, and lose face.
Farage is a big old scaredy cat anyway.
He's not the one running scared of debates.
There aren't any UKIP MP's.
I've got as much right as the Farage Party to take part in a debate.
Keep making excuses. The only reason the third most supported party in the UK wouldn't be included is because Cameron's too frit to face Farage.
Keeping him out does Kippahs a huge favour - Nige blowharding his grievances - doing his "Brussells"-pause-Eck like chuckle - "Westminster Establishment" - pause - blah blah.
If that's the case, surely Cameron would be pushing to get him included? But Cameron isn't. Because he's scared.
Having Farage there would be nasty for Cameron. Too many of his differences with Labour take the form, "X is terrible, we would do marginally less of X than Labour". The whole thing falls to bits if you have someone on stage saying, "Since X is so terrible, we should stop doing it".
On the other hand, that might lead to an SNP majority government.
Labour will lose its scotsmen at westminster eventually, however they twist and spin. Its over. A sensible labour leader would realise that and plan accordingly.
As it is Labour are going to lose their Scotsmen in a way that really annoys people both north and south of the border - ie in the worst way possible.
Mr. Royale, does that 75 seat gain assume he holds onto all Labour's Scottish seats?
I'd be surprised if Labour weren't the largest party in Scotland after the election, but they could lose a fair number of seats.
It's going to be a fun election in Scotland sort of musical chairs with electors.
If Labour attack the Tories heavily they simply undermine the Union even further and see Surgeon pick up more of the leftish voters who will vote to leave. Paradoxically they need the Tories to do well by picking up righties who vote SNP but who are now disquieted by an SNP lurch further left.
The SNP will use the Tory bogeyman to attack Labour as their little helpers but in doing so might just scare off some of their previous supporters however the big gains are to be made in places like Glasgow and stealing Labour's voters.
The Tories need to make themselves more local but if they play their cards right can pick up a few seats in rural areas.
The LDs just need to batten down the hatches and survive as everyone is after their lunch.
Realignment on the horizon.
The LDs have same big MP names up there although I'm not sure which of them are retiring next year - anyone know? Those seats if any would present a particular opportunity.
Having Farage there would be nasty for Cameron. Too many of his differences with Labour take the form, "X is terrible, we would do marginally less of X than Labour". The whole thing falls to bits if you have someone on stage saying, "Since X is so terrible, we should stop doing it".
And of course not having to think through the other consequences as well, just carp and rant about 'they're all the same'.
What the Conservatives want (and the country deserves) is to have the actual choice presented to voters.
Mr. Royale, does that 75 seat gain assume he holds onto all Labour's Scottish seats?
I'd be surprised if Labour weren't the largest party in Scotland after the election, but they could lose a fair number of seats.
It's going to be a fun election in Scotland sort of musical chairs with electors.
If Labour attack the Tories heavily they simply undermine the Union even further and see Surgeon pick up more of the leftish voters who will vote to leave. Paradoxically they need the Tories to do well by picking up righties who vote SNP but who are now disquieted by an SNP lurch further left.
The SNP will use the Tory bogeyman to attack Labour as their little helpers but in doing so might just scare off some of their previous supporters however the big gains are to be made in places like Glasgow and stealing Labour's voters.
The Tories need to make themselves more local but if they play their cards right can pick up a few seats in rural areas.
The LDs just need to batten down the hatches and survive as everyone is after their lunch.
Realignment on the horizon.
On the face of it the referendum seemed to present the SNP as a lefty party and lefties were eager to use the idea of being independent to be a short cut to left-wing nirvana. This ought to be a motive for right wing SNPers tp think about the tories.
I am seriously considering voting (or more apt lending Cameron my vote) Tory for the first time at the next GE- and this in a key Tory marginal. My reasoning is this- the next Parliament will be tough for whoever wins. Austerity on austerity. Cameron, for all his public school sense of entitlement, is actually not a bad leader and PM- and moderate for a Tory who are mostly off the radar nutters. And Ed- he is just so hopeless, that a sustained period with him as PM will lead Labour into political oblivion- this will all play into the hands of Boris Johnson and the fruitcakes.
So my mantra- vote Cameron, keep out Boris, and help sustain Labour as a political party in the long term once they despatch the hapless Ed. 2014 is a shitty election to win, so let the Tories shovel the shyte for another 5 years. OK- it might be a bit long for a political slogan, but it does have a good ring to it.
'But I can't help feeling it's a funny old society that breeds Labour peers who cannot see that the property boom was incredibly socially divisive, and declare that while other sorts of wealth should be taxed, their sort of wealth deserves to be looked on as idiosyncratic, almost a cruel twist of fate, to be gazed on kindly, and with affectionate sentimentality.'
"while other sorts of wealth should be taxed, their sort of wealth deserves to be looked on as idiosyncratic, almost a cruel twist of fate, to be gazed on kindly, and with affectionate sentimentality."
Which is well illustrated by Dan's Mum:
She explained “It will impact disastrously on people who are asset rich but revenue poor, particularly pensioners, who bought their houses many years ago and through no fault of their own have seen the value rise because of the ludicrous London house prices."
% of voters that give an Aylesbury duck about this ?
% of all voters that give an Aylesbury duck about this < % of Con/Ukip swing voters that give an Aylesbury duck about this.
Possibly, but if I'm reading this right they're not actually leaving the ECHR, they're just making it so that in some situations you have to sue in Strasbourg instead of the UK, which will be slow and expensive, but in a lot of cases the British taxpayer will pick up the bill for expensively litigating both sides. Are the UKIP-curious Tories who are bothered about this going to be impressed?
How about Labour at 9/1 sneaking through as Tories shoot down UKIP and Labour exploit the Tory attack on benefits?In Clacton Labour were 200/1 on betfair - not anymore
The mansion tax creates a conflict of interest for the political party implementing it. It gives it a financial interest in allowing / permitting / encouraging even house price inflation to roar out of control because that will increase the amount chargeable and the number of houses caught.
But such a policy - inflation - is a failure in economic terms and a failure in social terms because it is indicative of too few houses to meet demand. A good housing market is one where house prices hardly move at all and certainly not at multiples of the general inflation rate.
So - which policy will a government follow? One which stabilises the housing market, increases supply and reduces inflation? Or one which creates theoretical wealth which can be taxed out of income?
That's the trouble with conflicts of interest. The right answer is very often the one which doesn't benefit you financially. If such a tax comes in the government will have every financial incentive to do nothing about house price inflation.
A government imposing a mansion tax is like a banker paying himself a large commission every time he sells a rubbish product to a customer.
% of voters that give an Aylesbury duck about this ?
A fraction of the number of i) Tory back benchers and ii) Daily Mail op-ed writers.....Of course it will HUGELY upset the legal establishment, who are chuntering away already.....
Mr. Tyson, when did you return from Italy? Anyway, welcome back to Blighty.
Thanks Mr Morris- although technically not back just yet. I am starting to find myself getting interested in UK politics though which I don't know is a good or bad thing.
For anyone not watching Sky a quite fascinating counterpoint shown in their coverage of the by elections.
Both Farage and Miliband are pictured in Heywood and Middleton dressed in suits surrounded by their supporters campaigning.
David Cameron is then pictured wandering on an empty beach just down the road from Clacton viewing sea defences with a handful of officials wearing hard hats and luminous jackets. Cameron has no plans to canvas or campaign today.
Does anyone actually KNOW how many elderly ladies (or couples for that matter) who live in large London houses, but are so cash poor that they couldn’t pay increased rates. Even with Council Tax Relief?
Does anyone actually KNOW how many elderly ladies (or couples for that matter) who live in large London houses, but are so cash poor that they couldn’t pay increased rates. Even with Council Tax Relief?
Does anyone actually KNOW how many elderly ladies (or couples for that matter) who live in large London houses, but are so cash poor that they couldn’t pay increased rates. Even with Council Tax Relief?
Does anyone actually KNOW how many elderly ladies (or couples for that matter) who live in large London houses, but are so cash poor that they couldn’t pay increased rates. Even with Council Tax Relief?
If they exist at all they are like those Orkney dairy farmers for whose sake we have to have GMT in winter - punching way above their demographic weight.
Does anyone actually KNOW how many elderly ladies (or couples for that matter) who live in large London houses, but are so cash poor that they couldn’t pay increased rates. Even with Council Tax Relief?
As far as I'm aware, there are no Government records of how many £2m homes there are, let alone who lives in them and what their economic circumstances are.
@Cyclefree - you were right, Blackheath, which I think is Lewisham? but she has moved since then.
Does anyone actually KNOW how many elderly ladies (or couples for that matter) who live in large London houses, but are so cash poor that they couldn’t pay increased rates. Even with Council Tax Relief?
The Times had a few such people in last weekend's papers. One was a lady of 84. Of course one can say that she ought to move but at that age that's quite a strain and it feels like an unkind policy. It may well be irrational but forcing people out of their homes at an advanced age, whether because of mansion taxes or bedroom taxe, has a very negative resonance.
Anyone who bought their home more than a decade or so ago could be caught.
Better IMO to tax sale prices and/or have council tax bands.
Does anyone actually KNOW how many elderly ladies (or couples for that matter) who live in large London houses, but are so cash poor that they couldn’t pay increased rates. Even with Council Tax Relief?
No I don't but here is an analysis of the overall numbers of houses which people might find interesting.
In particular the interesting point for me is that 86% of the houses targeted are in London & The South East. Given I suspect London will be a key battleground (given the above average swings to Labour in London there may be 10 Tory seats in their sights) its an interesting tack for Miliband to take
The Tories need to get ahead of the mansion tax and put a buy-to-let land value tax in place so capital is properly invested rather than in housing stock that could be sold to owner-occupiers. The Tories need to get tough on buy-to-let housing if they are going to win over the current generation between 26-40. The starter homes initiative will help, but it needs to be on a massive scale to make a dent in dropping home ownership rates and to help generation rent get onto the housing ladder.
What it also does is introduce the principal of only taxing property assets that are deployed to return cash rather than those that do not return cash such as primary residences. Buy-to-let property is a liquid asset and introducing a 2-4% value tax on them with an exemption for new builds will change the housing market for the better.
FWIW, I think that UKIP have missed out on the best time for defections, which would have been to time them earlier this year, with by-elections on the same day as the Euros. That would have provided a double-whammy (I have no doubt that Reckless would have been re-elected if done then).
But now? After the Conferences? The starting pistol has gone off for the General Election. People are having to turn their minds to the real thing, not some stunt driven by one party. I suspect some people will be annoyed at having a by-election foisted upon them, much more so at Rochester (where Reckless doesn't have the warm regard) than Clacton.
Does anyone actually KNOW how many elderly ladies (or couples for that matter) who live in large London houses, but are so cash poor that they couldn’t pay increased rates. Even with Council Tax Relief?
The Times had a few such people in last weekend's papers. One was a lady of 84. Of course one can say that she ought to move but at that age that's quite a strain and it feels like an unkind policy. It may well be irrational but forcing people out of their homes at an advanced age, whether because of mansion taxes or bedroom taxe, has a very negative resonance.
Anyone who bought their home more than a decade or so ago could be caught.
Better IMO to tax sale prices and/or have council tax bands.
Does anyone actually KNOW how many elderly ladies (or couples for that matter) who live in large London houses, but are so cash poor that they couldn’t pay increased rates. Even with Council Tax Relief?
The Times had a few such people in last weekend's papers. One was a lady of 84. Of course one can say that she ought to move but at that age that's quite a strain and it feels like an unkind policy. It may well be irrational but forcing people out of their homes at an advanced age, whether because of mansion taxes or bedroom taxe, has a very negative resonance.
Anyone who bought their home more than a decade or so ago could be caught.
Better IMO to tax sale prices and/or have council tax bands.
The Tories need to get ahead of the mansion tax and put a buy-to-let land value tax in place so capital is properly invested rather than in housing stock that could be sold to owner-occupiers. The Tories need to get tough on buy-to-let housing if they are going to win over the current generation between 26-40. The starter homes initiative will help, but it needs to be on a massive scale to make a dent in dropping home ownership rates and to help generation rent get onto the housing ladder.
What it also does is introduce the principal of only taxing property assets that are deployed to return cash rather than those that do not return cash such as primary residences. Buy-to-let property is a liquid asset and introducing a 2-4% value tax on them with an exemption for new builds will change the housing market for the better.
Unfortunately the council tax has already created the principle of taxing property assets that do not return cash. Of course the Tories tried to get rid of it but we know what happened there.
FWIW, I think that UKIP have missed out on the best time for defections, which would have been to time them earlier this year, with by-elections on the same day as the Euros. That would have provided a double-whammy (I have no doubt that Reckless would have been re-elected if done then).
But now? After the Conferences? The starting pistol has gone off for the General Election. People are having to turn their minds to the real thing, not some stunt driven by one party. I suspect some people will be annoyed at having a by-election foisted upon them, much more so at Rochester (where Reckless doesn't have the warm regard) than Clacton.
Yes however, UKIP knew they would have equal publicity throughout the Euro Election campaign and beyond if they won it as they did. However, what was feasible was they could have then been shut out once the furore over those elections died down and the summer break and subsequent conference season started.
By periodically announcing defections and forcing by elections throughout the period (and Wheeler is suggesting there could be two more defections before Christmas) up to the election campaign would keep them in the news and add further pressure for equal exposure status in the election campaign. Yes it may have some considerable risks but the rewards if they could pull off such a strategy are immense. It has worked extremely well up until now.
If upsetting a few voters who would likely never vote for you is the price to pay for a massive increase in the party's profile nationally, I doubt very much if there is a political leader on the planet who would baulk from doing it.
Does anyone actually KNOW how many elderly ladies (or couples for that matter) who live in large London houses, but are so cash poor that they couldn’t pay increased rates. Even with Council Tax Relief?
No I don't but here is an analysis of the overall numbers of houses which people might find interesting.
In particular the interesting point for me is that 86% of the houses targeted are in London & The South East. Given I suspect London will be a key battleground (given the above average swings to Labour in London there may be 10 Tory seats in their sights) its an interesting tack for Miliband to take
That’s why I specified Council Tax. In other words a couple of new bands. An apparently satisfactory Relief scheme already exists, which opens the door to other benefits. All that has to happen is for the Treasury to reduce the Grant to Local Authorities by the apparently easily calculated extra Council Tax received.
It’s so easy that there must be an unurmountable hurdle somewhere I haven’t thought of!
I lived there from I970 to the mid-80s. My Mum is still in the same house. Bought for £7,000. Worth a lot more now. Sue Perkins has just moved in round the corner apparently.
Does anyone actually KNOW how many elderly ladies (or couples for that matter) who live in large London houses, but are so cash poor that they couldn’t pay increased rates. Even with Council Tax Relief?
No I don't but here is an analysis of the overall numbers of houses which people might find interesting.
In particular the interesting point for me is that 86% of the houses targeted are in London & The South East. Given I suspect London will be a key battleground (given the above average swings to Labour in London there may be 10 Tory seats in their sights) its an interesting tack for Miliband to take
That’s why I specified Council Tax. In other words a couple of new bands. An apparently satisfactory Relief scheme already exists, which opens the door to other benefits. All that has to happen is for the Treasury to reduce the Grant to Local Authorities by the apparently easily calculated extra Council Tax received.
It’s so easy that there must be an unurmountable hurdle somewhere I haven’t thought of!
OKC Indeed I wasn't responding to your post of course but that is one way to address it. Hasn't Osborne effectively tried this already?
I think the downside of such an approach would be to possibly force a likely very unpopular comprehensive revaluation of all properties. I suspect the Mansion Tax will likely attempt to avoid a complete revaluation and in doing so try not to scare those horses not directly affected.
I lived there from I970 to the mid-80s. My Mum is still in the same house. Bought for £7,000. Worth a lot more now. Sue Perkins has just moved in round the corner apparently.
Cheers SO - I Just googled images - Tis a rather grand looking place! - lucky Mum ; )
The abolition of human rights in the UK has been a cunning Cameron plan which was reflected in the way he removed the 3 obstacles to change,Grieve,Clarke and Hague in the most recent reshuffle.This Daily Mail agenda only binds together those who care to celebrate the HRA,anyone but the Tories,or their pals in Tory Ukip. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28339263
Britain Elects @britainelects 6m6 minutes ago Scottish Opinion Poll (Panelbase) Westminster: SNP - 34% LAB - 32% CON - 18% UKIP - 6% LDEM - 5%
Oh, Eck being Eck then. He made it sound like an SNP walkover. Tories should be reasonably satisfied and Labour hardly panicking.
I think they should be panicking to some extent (and the LibDems to a huge extent). The GE shares in Scotland were:
SNP - 19.9% LAB - 42.0% CON - 16.7% UKIP - Lost in the noise LDEM - 18.9%
Isn't it pretty well established now that Panelbase are very SNP friendly?
A big wildcard in Scotland is the huge increase in the SNP's membership and where that will take the party now. The old membership has been swallowed whole by the new so the current decision and policy making dynamic could potentially change completely. But it looks like labour has a fight on its hands. What it should do is establish itself as a separate party to English Labour and develop a distinct voice. But that is not going to happen.
Does anyone actually KNOW how many elderly ladies (or couples for that matter) who live in large London houses, but are so cash poor that they couldn’t pay increased rates. Even with Council Tax Relief?
No I don't but here is an analysis of the overall numbers of houses which people might find interesting.
In particular the interesting point for me is that 86% of the houses targeted are in London & The South East. Given I suspect London will be a key battleground (given the above average swings to Labour in London there may be 10 Tory seats in their sights) its an interesting tack for Miliband to take
That’s why I specified Council Tax. In other words a couple of new bands. An apparently satisfactory Relief scheme already exists, which opens the door to other benefits. All that has to happen is for the Treasury to reduce the Grant to Local Authorities by the apparently easily calculated extra Council Tax received.
It’s so easy that there must be an unurmountable hurdle somewhere I haven’t thought of!
OKC Indeed I wasn't responding to your post of course but that is one way to address it. Hasn't Osborne effectively tried this already?
I think the downside of such an approach would be to possibly force a likely very unpopular comprehensive revaluation of all properties. I suspect the Mansion Tax will likely attempt to avoid a complete revaluation and in doing so try not to scare those horses not directly affected.
I’m not sure why a general revaluation should be necessary. There will a few properties on the fringe, of course, but my experience is that sorting those out, if time-consuming is generall straight-forward!
I lived there from I970 to the mid-80s. My Mum is still in the same house. Bought for £7,000. Worth a lot more now. Sue Perkins has just moved in round the corner apparently.
Cheers SO - I Just googled images - Tis a rather grand looking place! - lucky Mum ; )
It's changed hugely over the last 20 years or so. When we lived in London we could have bought a place in the same street as my parents for £300,000. It would have been tight but doable on our joint income. However, I did not want to live in the same street as my parents and did not want to stretch things when we were able to live in a house in Archway just a couple of miles away for under half the price. That decision cost us well over £I million. Such is life.
When we originally moved in the houses were mostly divided into flats. We inherited a sitting tenant called Mrs Howard who was about 80 years old and bed ridden. Back then it was considered to be the wrong side of Hampstead Heath and so cheap as chips.
One of the many excellent points made by Kay and King in their book on the British Tax System http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-British-Tax-System-J-A/dp/019828313X is that specific tax charges (and breaks) only make a difference when introduced. After that the market adjusts, and the tax (or break) becomes neutral. It ceases to be neutral only when the tax (or break) is removed, when the group affected obtains a benefit (or suffers a loss), until the market readjusts again.
This is common sense when you think about it, although it is so widely ignored that you are bound to conclude that common sense in this area is in pretty short supply.
Nowhere is the truth of the principle more evident than in the housing market, which has been distorted for decades by tax perks and their subsequent removal. The main tax perk left is the exemption from capital gains tax applying to one's principal private residence. Nobody now benefits, but many would lose out if it were removed. You can imagine the howls of anguish if it were, but they would be one-off howls. The market would adjust, in fairly short time I think, and calm would be restored in a sane and sensible market in which homes rated no differently in financial term to other commodities in which one might invest, from gold bars to chocolate ones, from company shares to ploughshares.
It follows of course that the so-called Mansion Tax is just more financial nonsense, trotted out for political not fiscal purposes.
But then you could say the same about most of the tax tosh trotted out by our politicians at both the recent Conferences, and no doubt at the one to be held shortly.
The abolition of human rights in the UK has been a cunning Cameron plan which was reflected in the way he removed the 3 obstacles to change,Grieve,Clarke and Hague in the most recent reshuffle.This Daily Mail agenda only binds together those who care to celebrate the HRA,anyone but the Tories,or their pals in Tory Ukip. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28339263
The reason he removed Grieve, Clarke and Hague, I suspect is the same as why he removed Green, Barker and Warsi. Cameron removed all overt signs of Europhilia and anti UKIP sentiments from the higher echelons of government. Granted the HRA is associated with that but it was for the wider EU reasons I suspect. Wider than that he removed Gove as well which likely demonstrates that his primary purpose was to sanitize his frontbench from irritants as much as possible before the election.
The abolition of human rights in the UK has been a cunning Cameron plan which was reflected in the way he removed the 3 obstacles to change,Grieve,Clarke and Hague in the most recent reshuffle.This Daily Mail agenda only binds together those who care to celebrate the HRA,anyone but the Tories,or their pals in Tory Ukip. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28339263
Human rights existed pre-1998, in the United Kingdom.
The Tories need to get ahead of the mansion tax and put a buy-to-let land value tax in place so capital is properly invested rather than in housing stock that could be sold to owner-occupiers. The Tories need to get tough on buy-to-let housing if they are going to win over the current generation between 26-40. The starter homes initiative will help, but it needs to be on a massive scale to make a dent in dropping home ownership rates and to help generation rent get onto the housing ladder.
What it also does is introduce the principal of only taxing property assets that are deployed to return cash rather than those that do not return cash such as primary residences. Buy-to-let property is a liquid asset and introducing a 2-4% value tax on them with an exemption for new builds will change the housing market for the better.
What exactly do you imagine this will achieve? All this will do is put the price of my rent up as my landlord recoups the tax plus a little extra by rent increases.
One of the many excellent points made by Kay and King in their book on the British Tax System http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-British-Tax-System-J-A/dp/019828313X is that specific tax charges (and breaks) only make a difference when introduced. After that the market adjusts, and the tax (or break) becomes neutral. It ceases to be neutral only when the tax (or break) is removed, when the group affected obtains a benefit (or suffers a loss), until the market readjusts again.
This is common sense when you think about it, although it is so widely ignored that you are bound to conclude that common sense in this area is in pretty short supply.
So Gordon Brown did not destroy our pensions then, as he merely changed the tax regime. That's not the meme.
The abolition of human rights in the UK has been a cunning Cameron plan which was reflected in the way he removed the 3 obstacles to change,Grieve,Clarke and Hague in the most recent reshuffle.This Daily Mail agenda only binds together those who care to celebrate the HRA,anyone but the Tories,or their pals in Tory Ukip. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28339263
Our human rights should not stem from an Act of Parliament or a treaty between states but should be innate. In fact, I'd argue that the HRA was more destructive of human rights than any other act of parliament in that it established the principle that rights only exist when parliament chooses to grant them and without such legislation they do not exist.
As for the ECHR, the most bedrock of all rights is democracy and an unelected and unaccountable court has no place in any democratic system.
The abolition of human rights in the UK has been a cunning Cameron plan which was reflected in the way he removed the 3 obstacles to change,Grieve,Clarke and Hague in the most recent reshuffle.This Daily Mail agenda only binds together those who care to celebrate the HRA,anyone but the Tories,or their pals in Tory Ukip. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28339263
Human rights existed pre-1998, in the United Kingdom.
The abolition of human rights in the UK has been a cunning Cameron plan which was reflected in the way he removed the 3 obstacles to change,Grieve,Clarke and Hague in the most recent reshuffle.This Daily Mail agenda only binds together those who care to celebrate the HRA,anyone but the Tories,or their pals in Tory Ukip. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28339263
Human rights existed pre-1998, in the United Kingdom.
The abolition of human rights in the UK has been a cunning Cameron plan which was reflected in the way he removed the 3 obstacles to change,Grieve,Clarke and Hague in the most recent reshuffle.This Daily Mail agenda only binds together those who care to celebrate the HRA,anyone but the Tories,or their pals in Tory Ukip. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28339263
Human rights existed pre-1998, in the United Kingdom.
I don't see why the UK Supreme Court can't hear human rights appeals, rather than Stasbourg. Of course, it should be to a British bill of rights passed by the Commons.
There's another reason to fear a UKIP win in Rochester and Strrood; given UKIP's fondness for Putin and Putin's expansionist stance, it should be noted that there is a Russian submarine moored in the Medway in the constituency:
If UKIP win, how long before Putin declares the submarine Russian Territory, and moves to annex it and the vital naval port of Chatham? We might need to mine Rochester Castle again ...
Does anyone actually KNOW how many elderly ladies (or couples for that matter) who live in large London houses, but are so cash poor that they couldn’t pay increased rates. Even with Council Tax Relief?
No I don't but here is an analysis of the overall numbers of houses which people might find interesting.
In particular the interesting point for me is that 86% of the houses targeted are in London & The South East. Given I suspect London will be a key battleground (given the above average swings to Labour in London there may be 10 Tory seats in their sights) its an interesting tack for Miliband to take
Generally speaking, my experience is that people in £3 million houses who vote Labour are on the left of the party and perfectly willing to cough up. The impact on our election prospects in London will be negligible.
The abolition of human rights in the UK has been a cunning Cameron plan which was reflected in the way he removed the 3 obstacles to change,Grieve,Clarke and Hague in the most recent reshuffle.This Daily Mail agenda only binds together those who care to celebrate the HRA,anyone but the Tories,or their pals in Tory Ukip. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28339263
Our human rights should not stem from an Act of Parliament or a treaty between states but should be innate. In fact, I'd argue that the HRA was more destructive of human rights than any other act of parliament in that it established the principle that rights only exist when parliament chooses to grant them and without such legislation they do not exist.
As for the ECHR, the most bedrock of all rights is democracy and an unelected and unaccountable court has no place in any democratic system.
One of the many excellent points made by Kay and King in their book on the British Tax System http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-British-Tax-System-J-A/dp/019828313X is that specific tax charges (and breaks) only make a difference when introduced. After that the market adjusts, and the tax (or break) becomes neutral. It ceases to be neutral only when the tax (or break) is removed, when the group affected obtains a benefit (or suffers a loss), until the market readjusts again.
This is common sense when you think about it, although it is so widely ignored that you are bound to conclude that common sense in this area is in pretty short supply.
Nowhere is the truth of the principle more evident than in the housing market, which has been distorted for decades by tax perks and their subsequent removal. The main tax perk left is the exemption from capital gains tax applying to one's principal private residence. Nobody now benefits, but many would lose out if it were removed. You can imagine the howls of anguish if it were, but they would be one-off howls. The market would adjust, in fairly short time I think, and calm would be restored in a sane and sensible market in which homes rated no differently in financial term to other commodities in which one might invest, from gold bars to chocolate ones, from company shares to ploughshares.
It follows of course that the so-called Mansion Tax is just more financial nonsense, trotted out for political not fiscal purposes.
But then you could say the same about most of the tax tosh trotted out by our politicians at both the recent Conferences, and no doubt at the one to be held shortly.
Very true but its the potential consequences of the threat of such one off changes that is most important in politics. Just consider what happened when the Poll tax was introduced to replace the Rates. Now I'm not suggesting there would be such a widespread and potent response to a Mansion Tax but it may have an impact in some London seats and a wider effect across the South East (particularly if scaremongering suggested it was only a first step and the threshold would be lowered increasingly as the This is Money article I linked suggests is essential).
As we know from various political acts including the poll tax even after the physical negative implications have long since dissipated the political resentment lingers long.
That's a very difficult question to answer, and one I am certainly not qualified to answer.
For what very little it is worth I think the main culprits regarding Pensions have been the Pension Companies, but I am sure Gordon played his part too.
Is UKIP's private polling as good as Alex Salmond's?
I think we should be told.
p.s. by the way, the 'Go to bed with Nige, wake up with Ed' meme will only really work at the General Election, not a local or by-election where it obviously isn't true … the beauty of Cameron's meme is that on May 7th it may actually be right. And that may scare sufficient people off.
There's another reason to fear a UKIP win in Rochester and Strrood; given UKIP's fondness for Putin and Putin's expansionist stance, it should be noted that there is a Russian submarine moored in the Medway in the constituency:
If UKIP win, how long before Putin declares the submarine Russian Territory, and moves to annex it and the vital naval port of Chatham? We might need to mine Rochester Castle again ...
I lived there from I970 to the mid-80s. My Mum is still in the same house. Bought for £7,000. Worth a lot more now. Sue Perkins has just moved in round the corner apparently.
Does anyone actually KNOW how many elderly ladies (or couples for that matter) who live in large London houses, but are so cash poor that they couldn’t pay increased rates. Even with Council Tax Relief?
The Times had a few such people in last weekend's papers. One was a lady of 84. Of course one can say that she ought to move but at that age that's quite a strain and it feels like an unkind policy. It may well be irrational but forcing people out of their homes at an advanced age, whether because of mansion taxes or bedroom taxe, has a very negative resonance
Forcing people out of their homes at an advanced age may indeed have a very negative resonance but that doesn't stop politicians doing it though. Kent County Council for example.
That's a very difficult question to answer, and one I am certainly not qualified to answer.
For what very little it is worth I think the main culprits regarding Pensions have been the Pension Companies, but I am sure Gordon played his part too.
We have to look to ourselves too, PtP. By deciding to live longer we put the pension system under far more strain than Gordon Brown ever did.
Does anyone actually KNOW how many elderly ladies (or couples for that matter) who live in large London houses, but are so cash poor that they couldn’t pay increased rates. Even with Council Tax Relief?
No I don't but here is an analysis of the overall numbers of houses which people might find interesting.
In particular the interesting point for me is that 86% of the houses targeted are in London & The South East. Given I suspect London will be a key battleground (given the above average swings to Labour in London there may be 10 Tory seats in their sights) its an interesting tack for Miliband to take
Generally speaking, my experience is that people in £3 million houses who vote Labour are on the left of the party and perfectly willing to cough up. The impact on our election prospects in London will be negligible.
Does anyone actually KNOW how many elderly ladies (or couples for that matter) who live in large London houses, but are so cash poor that they couldn’t pay increased rates. Even with Council Tax Relief?
I personally know a couple.
A retired bus driver and his kitchen assistant wife who bought a property many years ago, the 1960s.
Very ordinary people with a very ordinary family that had a stroke of luck because they bought a house. Ed Miliband wants to take it away from them. He doesn't like ordinary people getting lucky.
Isn't the £600,000 or so inheritance tax bill that will they will pay when they die, enough?
Still, at least the area will be "cleansed" of these ordinary people and a foreign investor, or maybe someone like Ed Miliband, will get their mitts on it.
Tax is a playing field on which political games are played. Ideally the system would be simple and as neutral as possible. It would then interfere little with the operation of free markets and we would all be better off.
It is fanciful to imagine we will ever achieve such an ideal, but it's worth hanging on to in principle, if only to avoid the delusion that Mansion Tax or anything else of that ilk is likely to achieve anything much - except of course some much needed votes at an election.
No they have not virtually given up in the South of England , it is true that they are concentrating on a relatively small number of seats Hastings , Brighton and Hove , Dover and Crawley are examples .
Can't speak about Brighton or Hastings but they more or less given up in Dover
After Labour made a mountain out of a molehill over the spare room subsidy, it is strange they then themselves want to chuck people out of their own homes. Guess, as they own their own homes, rather than renting, they are evil rich Tories so fair game.
Some people are more equal than others. Socialism at its best.
@SouthamObserver – Indeed, such is life, but not too many regrets I hope.
As I’ve said before, I’m a Londoner born and bred and still love the place; unfortunately we left Beaufort Street, just off the Kings Rd in the mid 70s and moved south of the river. - A long story I hope to share when time permits.
The bigger issue of the so-called mansion tax, there are some ordinary sized 4 bed family homes falling into the mansion category, is the potential for tax creep.
£2 million now, but how low will that go when they can't get the books to balance?
Does anyone remember the constant complaining about the wealth of the 1%? By yesterday, that had already expanded to 15%.
How long before the top third become undeserving of keeping their incomes?
Is Dover not a seat that has moved towards the Tories over the last elections? Admittedly, has Hastings gone the other way?
Prosser for labour had 3 terms from 97, Elphicke a tory won in 2010. The labour candidate is from an all women's shortlist, the local press are scathing and she has no union or party backing.
That's a very difficult question to answer, and one I am certainly not qualified to answer.
For what very little it is worth I think the main culprits regarding Pensions have been the Pension Companies, but I am sure Gordon played his part too.
We have to look to ourselves too, PtP. By deciding to live longer we put the pension system under far more strain than Gordon Brown ever did.
I have a solution, Neil.
Nobody should be entitled to live beyond seventy.
However, useful and likeable people (such as me) would be entitled to appeal for an extension of life - say five years - upon presentation of a petition signed by at least ten of their immediate relatives explaining why the old todger should be spared. Further extensions may be applied for in exceptional cases.
This would not only solve the Pensions problem, it would also dramatically reduce NHS costs and improve relations between the generations no end.
It astonishes me no Political Party has ever thought of this and included it in their manifesto.
Does anyone actually KNOW how many elderly ladies (or couples for that matter) who live in large London houses, but are so cash poor that they couldn’t pay increased rates. Even with Council Tax Relief?
No I don't but here is an analysis of the overall numbers of houses which people might find interesting.
In particular the interesting point for me is that 86% of the houses targeted are in London & The South East. Given I suspect London will be a key battleground (given the above average swings to Labour in London there may be 10 Tory seats in their sights) its an interesting tack for Miliband to take
Generally speaking, my experience is that people in £3 million houses who vote Labour are on the left of the party and perfectly willing to cough up. The impact on our election prospects in London will be negligible.
A Tory mate of mine who lives in Islington commented during the last local elections that the large houses were much more likely to have Labour posters in and the flats more likely to be Tory. Plenty of champagne socialists who wouldn't mind the mansion tax i guess.
No they have not virtually given up in the South of England , it is true that they are concentrating on a relatively small number of seats Hastings , Brighton and Hove , Dover and Crawley are examples .
Can't speak about Brighton or Hastings but they more or less given up in Dover
What utter drivel , look at the 2013 CC results for the districts making up the parliamentary seat , 3 Labour gains from Conservative .
Comments
I'd be surprised if Labour weren't the largest party in Scotland after the election, but they could lose a fair number of seats.
http://jackofkent.com/2014/10/exclusive-tory-proposals-for-bill-of-rights/
There will be a a positive impact from the mere fact that Carswell wins, if he does.
But there is unlikely to be such a margin that there is a UKIP tidal wave effect.
We shall see, of course, but as time goes by the UKIP +40 in Clacton is likely to be a high water mark. As the Tories fight local, name their candidate and we get to the point where people put an X in the box it will be chipped away. That's not to say they won't win; that seems almost certain.
The last poll forecast I saw showed plus 2 for Labour in Wales. That means ed needs 73 in England...??
On the other hand, that might lead to an SNP majority government.
So the question is, is 2015 their big opportunity or will they get* another?
After Spink they did. Maybe next time they won't. It may well depend on the 2015 result.
* I say get, but opportunities, like in football, are partly made and partly got. You might get the tap in, but you have to be in the right place.
If Labour attack the Tories heavily they simply undermine the Union even further and see Surgeon pick up more of the leftish voters who will vote to leave. Paradoxically they need the Tories to do well by picking up righties who vote SNP but who are now disquieted by an SNP lurch further left.
The SNP will use the Tory bogeyman to attack Labour as their little helpers but in doing so might just scare off some of their previous supporters however the big gains are to be made in places like Glasgow and stealing Labour's voters.
The Tories need to make themselves more local but if they play their cards right can pick up a few seats in rural areas.
The LDs just need to batten down the hatches and survive as everyone is after their lunch.
Realignment on the horizon.
Mr. Brooke, indeed, one suspects it won't be the rather dull result of 2010.
Labour will lose its scotsmen at westminster eventually, however they twist and spin. Its over. A sensible labour leader would realise that and plan accordingly.
As it is Labour are going to lose their Scotsmen in a way that really annoys people both north and south of the border - ie in the worst way possible.
http://www.glenda-jackson.co.uk/glenda-on-the-mansion-tax-proposals
What the Conservatives want (and the country deserves) is to have the actual choice presented to voters.
This ought to be a motive for right wing SNPers tp think about the tories.
@MrHarryCole: Serious internal Labour dirty tricks war spills over in Ashton under Lyme. Brutal. http://t.co/YRHAkMNJqO
My reasoning is this- the next Parliament will be tough for whoever wins. Austerity on austerity. Cameron, for all his public school sense of entitlement, is actually not a bad leader and PM- and moderate for a Tory who are mostly off the radar nutters.
And Ed- he is just so hopeless, that a sustained period with him as PM will lead Labour into political oblivion- this will all play into the hands of Boris Johnson and the fruitcakes.
So my mantra- vote Cameron, keep out Boris, and help sustain Labour as a political party in the long term once they despatch the hapless Ed. 2014 is a shitty election to win, so let the Tories shovel the shyte for another 5 years. OK- it might be a bit long for a political slogan, but it does have a good ring to it.
But as supporters of Labours mansion tax are so keen to tell us, these people are (filthy) asset rich and should just be grateful.
I see Joan Bakewell would have to cough up £10K-20K. Heart of stone etc
She had a go at the LibDems plan in 2012.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/9123806/After-40-years-why-should-I-be-forced-to-sell-my-property.html
This was a response -
'But I can't help feeling it's a funny old society that breeds Labour peers who cannot see that the property boom was incredibly socially divisive, and declare that while other sorts of wealth should be taxed, their sort of wealth deserves to be looked on as idiosyncratic, almost a cruel twist of fate, to be gazed on kindly, and with affectionate sentimentality.'
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/mar/09/deborah-orr-mansion-tax-opposition
She explained “It will impact disastrously on people who are asset rich but revenue poor, particularly pensioners, who bought their houses many years ago and through no fault of their own have seen the value rise because of the ludicrous London house prices."
I guess the scale and sustainability of any poll movements in reaction to Cameron's speech will tell us a bit more.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YBumQHPAeU
But such a policy - inflation - is a failure in economic terms and a failure in social terms because it is indicative of too few houses to meet demand. A good housing market is one where house prices hardly move at all and certainly not at multiples of the general inflation rate.
So - which policy will a government follow? One which stabilises the housing market, increases supply and reduces inflation? Or one which creates theoretical wealth which can be taxed out of income?
That's the trouble with conflicts of interest. The right answer is very often the one which doesn't benefit you financially. If such a tax comes in the government will have every financial incentive to do nothing about house price inflation.
A government imposing a mansion tax is like a banker paying himself a large commission every time he sells a rubbish product to a customer.
Both Farage and Miliband are pictured in Heywood and Middleton dressed in suits surrounded by their supporters campaigning.
David Cameron is then pictured wandering on an empty beach just down the road from Clacton viewing sea defences with a handful of officials wearing hard hats and luminous jackets. Cameron has no plans to canvas or campaign today.
Prophetic?
@Cyclefree - you were right, Blackheath, which I think is Lewisham? but she has moved since then.
I find the opposition amongst London labour MPs baffling.
Anyone who bought their home more than a decade or so ago could be caught.
Better IMO to tax sale prices and/or have council tax bands.
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/mortgageshome/article-2409661/Mansion-tax-needs-hit-1-25m-homes-2m-meet-target.html
In particular the interesting point for me is that 86% of the houses targeted are in London & The South East. Given I suspect London will be a key battleground (given the above average swings to Labour in London there may be 10 Tory seats in their sights) its an interesting tack for Miliband to take
What it also does is introduce the principal of only taxing property assets that are deployed to return cash rather than those that do not return cash such as primary residences. Buy-to-let property is a liquid asset and introducing a 2-4% value tax on them with an exemption for new builds will change the housing market for the better.
But now? After the Conferences? The starting pistol has gone off for the General Election. People are having to turn their minds to the real thing, not some stunt driven by one party. I suspect some people will be annoyed at having a by-election foisted upon them, much more so at Rochester (where Reckless doesn't have the warm regard) than Clacton.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dartmouth_Park
By periodically announcing defections and forcing by elections throughout the period (and Wheeler is suggesting there could be two more defections before Christmas) up to the election campaign would keep them in the news and add further pressure for equal exposure status in the election campaign. Yes it may have some considerable risks but the rewards if they could pull off such a strategy are immense. It has worked extremely well up until now.
If upsetting a few voters who would likely never vote for you is the price to pay for a massive increase in the party's profile nationally, I doubt very much if there is a political leader on the planet who would baulk from doing it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/29462209
Would've been the first woman for decades. Any deal broke down for financial reasons.
It’s so easy that there must be an unurmountable hurdle somewhere I haven’t thought of!
I think the downside of such an approach would be to possibly force a likely very unpopular comprehensive revaluation of all properties. I suspect the Mansion Tax will likely attempt to avoid a complete revaluation and in doing so try not to scare those horses not directly affected.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28339263
A big wildcard in Scotland is the huge increase in the SNP's membership and where that will take the party now. The old membership has been swallowed whole by the new so the current decision and policy making dynamic could potentially change completely. But it looks like labour has a fight on its hands. What it should do is establish itself as a separate party to English Labour and develop a distinct voice. But that is not going to happen.
When we originally moved in the houses were mostly divided into flats. We inherited a sitting tenant called Mrs Howard who was about 80 years old and bed ridden. Back then it was considered to be the wrong side of Hampstead Heath and so cheap as chips.
This is common sense when you think about it, although it is so widely ignored that you are bound to conclude that common sense in this area is in pretty short supply.
Nowhere is the truth of the principle more evident than in the housing market, which has been distorted for decades by tax perks and their subsequent removal. The main tax perk left is the exemption from capital gains tax applying to one's principal private residence. Nobody now benefits, but many would lose out if it were removed. You can imagine the howls of anguish if it were, but they would be one-off howls. The market would adjust, in fairly short time I think, and calm would be restored in a sane and sensible market in which homes rated no differently in financial term to other commodities in which one might invest, from gold bars to chocolate ones, from company shares to ploughshares.
It follows of course that the so-called Mansion Tax is just more financial nonsense, trotted out for political not fiscal purposes.
But then you could say the same about most of the tax tosh trotted out by our politicians at both the recent Conferences, and no doubt at the one to be held shortly.
Former Tory cabinet member Cllr Chris Wells quits to join @Ukip http://www.kentnews.co.uk/news/former_tory_cabinet_member_quits_to_join_ukip_1_3791366 … #UKIP
How did we manage in 1940, without the ECHR to deliberate on what is right and wrong?
As for the ECHR, the most bedrock of all rights is democracy and an unelected and unaccountable court has no place in any democratic system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_U-475_Black_Widow
If UKIP win, how long before Putin declares the submarine Russian Territory, and moves to annex it and the vital naval port of Chatham? We might need to mine Rochester Castle again ...
Needless to say: ;-)
Why are your MPs opposed then? I don;t understand it.
David
Are you proposing that we elect judges in the UK?
As we know from various political acts including the poll tax even after the physical negative implications have long since dissipated the political resentment lingers long.
That's a very difficult question to answer, and one I am certainly not qualified to answer.
For what very little it is worth I think the main culprits regarding Pensions have been the Pension Companies, but I am sure Gordon played his part too.
I think we should be told.
p.s. by the way, the 'Go to bed with Nige, wake up with Ed' meme will only really work at the General Election, not a local or by-election where it obviously isn't true … the beauty of Cameron's meme is that on May 7th it may actually be right. And that may scare sufficient people off.
There goes the neighbourhood.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-12199103
A retired bus driver and his kitchen assistant wife who bought a property many years ago, the 1960s.
Very ordinary people with a very ordinary family that had a stroke of luck because they bought a house. Ed Miliband wants to take it away from them. He doesn't like ordinary people getting lucky.
Isn't the £600,000 or so inheritance tax bill that will they will pay when they die, enough?
Still, at least the area will be "cleansed" of these ordinary people and a foreign investor, or maybe someone like Ed Miliband, will get their mitts on it.
Absolutely.
Tax is a playing field on which political games are played. Ideally the system would be simple and as neutral as possible. It would then interfere little with the operation of free markets and we would all be better off.
It is fanciful to imagine we will ever achieve such an ideal, but it's worth hanging on to in principle, if only to avoid the delusion that Mansion Tax or anything else of that ilk is likely to achieve anything much - except of course some much needed votes at an election.
No they have not virtually given up in the South of England , it is true that they are concentrating on a relatively small number of seats Hastings , Brighton and Hove , Dover and Crawley are examples .
Can't speak about Brighton or Hastings but they more or less given up in Dover
Some people are more equal than others. Socialism at its best.
As I’ve said before, I’m a Londoner born and bred and still love the place; unfortunately we left Beaufort Street, just off the Kings Rd in the mid 70s and moved south of the river. - A long story I hope to share when time permits.
£2 million now, but how low will that go when they can't get the books to balance?
Does anyone remember the constant complaining about the wealth of the 1%? By yesterday, that had already expanded to 15%.
How long before the top third become undeserving of keeping their incomes?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek:_First_Contact
,
Nobody should be entitled to live beyond seventy.
However, useful and likeable people (such as me) would be entitled to appeal for an extension of life - say five years - upon presentation of a petition signed by at least ten of their immediate relatives explaining why the old todger should be spared. Further extensions may be applied for in exceptional cases.
This would not only solve the Pensions problem, it would also dramatically reduce NHS costs and improve relations between the generations no end.
It astonishes me no Political Party has ever thought of this and included it in their manifesto.
What utter drivel , look at the 2013 CC results for the districts making up the parliamentary seat , 3 Labour gains from Conservative .