A Ukip insider told MMN: "The Tories and Labour have flooded this place with so-called big hitters and only succeeded in p******* people off.
Quite agree. I hope UKIP smash it out the park in Rochester on Thursday.
That's not even good enough to be a voodoo poll.
There was the big late break in H&M though...
Something has happened in the last week that has made UKIP a lot more confident that they are going to win- private polling, canvassing maybe..
Re. Opinium- has it been properly confirmed? It's unusual Opinium didn't mention VI in their write up.
My Dad (Conservative councillor) got an email from Mr Shapps a couple of Saturdays "Fancy a day trip out to Rochester & Strood today ?" he decided the 300 mile round trip wasn't worth it.
Key change: CON+5, LD-4 Key thing: LD beyond the electoral abyss on a new record low of 5% (electoral calculus LD 7 seats). Tory dilemma: If it's not an outlier then Tories ahead but LD and Clegg finished for good, if it's an outlier then Tories not in lead but LD and Clegg still can still hope.
I don't think it a story. But I think tax avoidance is perfectly legitimate. I was just curious as to how it might have worked hence my questions to you.
It risks becoming a story if Ed makes a big point of talking about higher taxes on the rich and others point out the possible hypocrisy of his stance. All Labour leaders are vulnerable to that charge - unless you're of the Blair/Mandelson ilk. And Labour themselves have laid the groundwork for it by talking about tax cuts for Cameron's friends and asking how much he benefited from IHT changes. So they shouldn't complain if the same is done to them.
I wouldn't even class it as avoidance. Ralph M simply forgot to make use of an allowance that was his by right, and that error was rectified by the DOV.
These were the kind of gotchas which make IHT such a pernicious tax (although that particular one was removed in 2009).
It falls mostly on the unworldy, the confused, the ill, and the secretive who are fearful of solicitors and their bills...
We were, at one time, potentially on the hook for around £250k but thankfully the final bill was zero.
I for one look forward to Ed explaining how his IHT wheeze was totally legal and in keeping with the law.
And how it is different from other individuals and companies doing the same in an effort to minimise their tax obligations.
I was responding to the insinuation that somehow the area was not safe. In fairness, I think Kent has accepted that to be a misrepresentation.
As for electoral fraud of any kind, never mind intimidation, it is to be deplored wherever it arises. All power to those who expose it.
In my defence, may I state that I voted for Boris ahead of Ken - only the second time in my life I have voted for a Conservative. Why? Well of course I have no proof that Ken is less pure and white than the driven snow, but I have always had my suspicions..... ;-)
You're being too kind to Livingstone. It is people like him who have, in my eyes, tainted Labour. He represents all that is bad about the Labour party.
My biggest issue with the mansion tax is that it is effectively a tax on London, and a transfer of wealth from inside of London to places not in London. If it was a local tax I could live with it or of it was applied to liquid assets such as second properties I would be hugely in favour, but the way Labour have constructed it makes no sense. Taxing illiquid assets based on inflated values is just stupid.
She did win the argument, she shoudn't have; an able Labour leader would have slaughtered her and given no quarter, but the fact is that on the night she did win the argument. That is the problem Labour have with Iain Duncan Miliband.
WTF didn't Ed prepare rebuttals for the interview, did it not occur to him that a millionaire former pop starette living in an expensive house might have negative views on the mansion tax?, a tax that the rest of us with houses worth about £250k actually support and if anything think is too timid; as it is high time removal of the free ride such people have had since the Tories abolished domestic rates.
What we actually need is a land value tax of 1% of the value of any land owned with no exemptions (other than perhaps certain charities like the national trust). That would break up the big estates, tax the multinationals heavily and stop pensioners bed blocking family houses.
Because rich people whining about paying £250 per month to go directly to the NHS is a win win win for Ed/LAB
Mansion tax is pretty awful as a concept. It won't tax that many mansions - mainly it'll be a 'nice area' tax. Undoubtedly it'll fall rather unfairly on some people, potentially forcing a few retired people out of homes they've owned for years.Labour are somehow trying to equate it to funding the NHS, but it's not at all clear why the money raised should be spent in that way. It's not clear either that Labour have any intention of addressing the out-of-control increases in NHS spending.
Dismal. They may as well just legalise highway robbery and bang a tax on the proceeds - doesn't seem too dissimilar.
She did win the argument, she shoudn't have; an able Labour leader would have slaughtered her and given no quarter, but the fact is that on the night she did win the argument. That is the problem Labour have with Iain Duncan Miliband.
WTF didn't Ed prepare rebuttals for the interview, did it not occur to him that a millionaire former pop starette living in an expensive house might have negative views on the mansion tax?, a tax that the rest of us with houses worth about £250k actually support and if anything think is too timid; as it is high time removal of the free ride such people have had since the Tories abolished domestic rates.
What we actually need is a land value tax of 1% of the value of any land owned with no exemptions (other than perhaps certain charities like the national trust). That would break up the big estates, tax the multinationals heavily and stop pensioners bed blocking family houses.
Just to get away from the crazy London property market, in this relatively poor part of Cumbria (which I know well - having family there) average property prices are: - Millom, with an overall average price of £90,514 was cheaper than nearby Askam-In-Furness (£131,656), Kirkby-In-Furness (£225,900) and Dalton-In-Furness (£114,302).
The area is served by a Labour MP Jamie Reed.
Average salaries are ca. £15,258 - £36,248.
I'm sure having to pay - in addition to council tax - 1% of the value of their homes - somewhere between an extra £900 - £1143 p.a. - will go down well.
If the Lib Dems really did tally 5% at the general election, I expect that they would take Orkney & Shetland, Westmorland & Lonsdale, Norfolk North and Ross, Skye & Lochaber. They would be lucky to take another seat.
Well, UNS is only an indication at the best of times, but if you construct a UNS spreadsheet and put a hard floor on the vote score (which you really need to do with the Lib Dems at the moment), then a lot is down to assumption, of course.
- Assume a hard floor at 1.5% in any constituency. - Assume that vote scores under 5% are harder to compress (give a 1.5% boost to any score that would be under 5% with a hard stop at 1.5%) - Assume no incumbency boost - Separate out Scotland (Giving them 3.5% in Scotland to reflect a further hit; UKIP only 10% in Scotland rather than 20%) - Give Tories 17% in Scotland (similar to last time) - Have Labour and SNP level on 31% in Scotland - Use Con 34, Lab 33, LD 5, UKIP 20, Green 5 for GB
... You get (on straight UNS) 9 LD seats (7 in England, 1 in Scotland, 1 in Wales) (For reference, you end up with Lab 323, Con 277, SNP 17, LD 9, Plaid 3, Green 2, UKIP 1)
Of course, you'll have some incumbency boost (which is what UKIP are relying on in Clacton and (they hope) Rochester). If you shove in a 2% incumbency boost for the Big Two parties (which seems consistent with pervious elections; could be questionable this time) and a 6% incumbency boost for Lib Dems (looks reasonably consistent with the Ashcroft figure) and adjust the Clacton seat by hand - otherwise it's utterly unwinnable for UKIP; on those figures, it's gonna be held by them.
...
You get 16 LD seats on 5% of the vote, with it never going negative or even below 1.5% in any seat.
(Lab 312, Con 280, SNP 17, LD 16, Plaid 3, UKIP 2, Green 2.
All for whatever it's worth. That's just what UNS produces under those assumptions (which don't look too implausible). It is, as with any modelling, highly artificial, but it does show that even on very low figures, the Lib Dems can get a few seats.
On the mansion tax issue - it does spark some thoughts:
- Those renting a dwelling valued over £2m will have it incident on them (the owner will pass it through, doubtless),
No they won't, any more than they can pass on any other bill, rents are set on market value which is why rents in my Bedfordshire town are exactly the same as they were in 2001 despite property prices more than doubling in value
If input costs continue to go up, then either they can be covered by the income or the owner has to sell up. Stamp duty, for example, although charged on the buyer, is incident on the seller. The market value will change. Incidentally, if rents haven't been changing, what in blue blazes is Miliband on about with his rent cap thing? Just setting up a false demon to harangue against?
- The vast majority of the c.125,000-150,000 dwellings valued over £2m will have their value primarily based on location (number derived from "0.5% of homes" multiplied by c. 25million to 30million homes in the UK). The vast majority of these will be in London. - It does smack of a little unfairness for a Government to be key in promoting scarcity of homes in desired locations (no-one's willing to reform the not-fit-for-purpose Green Belt legislation) and then imposing a tax on the value that comes out of that partly-artificial scarcuty
Do what I do then, move out 40 odd miles and commute. Better lifestyle and more space too.
Oh, I don't live in London. Although I do live somewhere else surrounded by a bloody Green Belt pushing prices up. Moving isn't an option - had to buy a house here: my severely autistic son is in a local special school. Moving him would be severely detrimental to him, so when I left the RAF (in my last posting, he was put in that school), I had to somehow buy a house in the catchment area.
- Are any social housing units in these scarce/desirable areas? Given that a regular semi-detached 4 bedroomed house can trigger the tax in some areas, will the tax be levied on social housing tenants who fall in such areas?
No, because they are tenants not owners.
If they're living in a "mansion" (aka 4-bedroom semi in the right area), why should they be exempt? The "tenant" thing assumes that the landlord swallows the cost rather than passes it on; if all landlords in the same boat get hit; those who can't afford to swallow the cost will certainly pass it on.
Comments
http://ourinsight.opinium.co.uk/sites/ourinsight.opinium.co.uk/files/op5032_opinium_pr_voting_reasons_-_tables_v.pdf
Key change: CON+5, LD-4
Key thing: LD beyond the electoral abyss on a new record low of 5% (electoral calculus LD 7 seats).
Tory dilemma: If it's not an outlier then Tories ahead but LD and Clegg finished for good, if it's an outlier then Tories not in lead but LD and Clegg still can still hope.
As Farage would say : "Baffling"
I for one look forward to Ed explaining how his IHT wheeze was totally legal and in keeping with the law.
And how it is different from other individuals and companies doing the same in an effort to minimise their tax obligations.
I take it that's what you meant?
http://www.maidstoneandmedwaynews.co.uk/Rochester-Strood-election-Ukip-storm-ahead-poll/story-23033788-detail/story.html
http://www.maidstoneandmedwaynews.co.uk/xx/story-24552581-detail/story.html
Dismal. They may as well just legalise highway robbery and bang a tax on the proceeds - doesn't seem too dissimilar.
The area is served by a Labour MP Jamie Reed.
Average salaries are ca. £15,258 - £36,248.
I'm sure having to pay - in addition to council tax - 1% of the value of their homes - somewhere between an extra £900 - £1143 p.a. - will go down well.
- Assume a hard floor at 1.5% in any constituency.
- Assume that vote scores under 5% are harder to compress (give a 1.5% boost to any score that would be under 5% with a hard stop at 1.5%)
- Assume no incumbency boost
- Separate out Scotland (Giving them 3.5% in Scotland to reflect a further hit; UKIP only 10% in Scotland rather than 20%)
- Give Tories 17% in Scotland (similar to last time)
- Have Labour and SNP level on 31% in Scotland
- Use Con 34, Lab 33, LD 5, UKIP 20, Green 5 for GB
... You get (on straight UNS) 9 LD seats (7 in England, 1 in Scotland, 1 in Wales)
(For reference, you end up with Lab 323, Con 277, SNP 17, LD 9, Plaid 3, Green 2, UKIP 1)
Of course, you'll have some incumbency boost (which is what UKIP are relying on in Clacton and (they hope) Rochester). If you shove in a 2% incumbency boost for the Big Two parties (which seems consistent with pervious elections; could be questionable this time) and a 6% incumbency boost for Lib Dems (looks reasonably consistent with the Ashcroft figure) and adjust the Clacton seat by hand - otherwise it's utterly unwinnable for UKIP; on those figures, it's gonna be held by them.
...
You get 16 LD seats on 5% of the vote, with it never going negative or even below 1.5% in any seat.
(Lab 312, Con 280, SNP 17, LD 16, Plaid 3, UKIP 2, Green 2.
All for whatever it's worth. That's just what UNS produces under those assumptions (which don't look too implausible). It is, as with any modelling, highly artificial, but it does show that even on very low figures, the Lib Dems can get a few seats.
Incidentally, if rents haven't been changing, what in blue blazes is Miliband on about with his rent cap thing? Just setting up a false demon to harangue against? Oh, I don't live in London. Although I do live somewhere else surrounded by a bloody Green Belt pushing prices up. Moving isn't an option - had to buy a house here: my severely autistic son is in a local special school. Moving him would be severely detrimental to him, so when I left the RAF (in my last posting, he was put in that school), I had to somehow buy a house in the catchment area. If they're living in a "mansion" (aka 4-bedroom semi in the right area), why should they be exempt? The "tenant" thing assumes that the landlord swallows the cost rather than passes it on; if all landlords in the same boat get hit; those who can't afford to swallow the cost will certainly pass it on.
UKIP
SELL 8.5 - 10.5 BUY
SNP
SELL 19 - 21 BUY
I've bought SNP at 20.5 & 21 for as much as they would allow me.
Also, they've opened a R&S election market. The UKIP vote share % is probably the only interesting bet, currently;
SELL 43% - 44.5% BUY
UKIP
SELL 8.5 - 10.5 BUY
SNP
SELL 19 - 21 BUY
I've bought SNP at 20.5 & 21 for as much as they would allow me.
Also, they've opened a R&S election market. The UKIP vote share % is probably the only interesting bet, currently;
SELL 43% - 44.5% BUY