FPT..The Mansion tax will soon be applied to a 3 bed inner city terrace..anyone who thinks it wont be is a fool...
Not if it is in the form of bands I,J,K,L,M,N,O,P,Q,R,S etc. of the Council tax. That would likely involve people in bands A-G paying less council tax.
But that's not Labour's proposal is it?
They seem to be saying that people in houses worth between £2 - 3 mio will only pay £250 per month more and that people in houses worth even more will pay squillions. But the sums raised are either footling amounts which will achieve the square root of bugger all in relation to the NHS or the amounts paid will have to be very very much greater or the threshold will have to come down significantly at which point we're not talking about taxing rich luvvies but about taxing the squeezed middle of which Labour used to be so fond.
It doesn't really add up.
If they're going to tax property why not use the revenues to build houses. I'm fed up with the NHS being seen as the only legitimate expense of government as if it's some sort of sacred cow. It is one of many competing priorities and it's about time all parties understood that.
The LDs are probably not finished, not least because they're almost certainly not on 5% but more like 8. However, I wouldn't read too much into their past recoveries as a guide to the present.
I suspect you are correct, but at present it's about the only hope they have. It might have worked if UKIP had done well but gotten no seats and lost momentum after 2015, but they seem guaranteed to win some (no more than 5 I hope, I have money on that) and either have a referendum to prepare for or the lack of one to mobilize them still, not leaving much protest vote ground to return to the LDs.
Against which, there is barely a part of the Lib Dem electoral coalition that is not under attack from Con, Lab, UKIP, Green, nationalist, independents or others. They may not be unique among the old parties in having old certainties challenged but they are most vulnerable.
.
Sounds about right. A vulnerability without a clear fix at present. A shame, as it would be nice to have more than 2.5 major parties in UK terms, perhaps 2 big and 2 moderately sized, but it looks tough.
The LD leadership has GOT to come up with something fresh, dramatic and "go-for-able" immediately after Christmas.
At the moment they seem to be in the position of the old Punch (remember that?) cartoon, where a squad of trainees is marching towards a cliff. The drill sergeant looks on, struck dumb!
The caption reads "Say SOMETHING, if it's only Goodbye!"
And Clegg is, in this context, the drill sergeant.
I'm one of those who thought in 2010 that "there was no alternative" but there must some sort of opportunity somewhere now. Surely to God!
It is when the Leader of the Opposition and supposed PM in seven months time gets slaughtered by Myleene Klass
I haven't joined in the Ed is Crap bullying because it didn't seem to be based on anything other than a few missed paragraphs in a speech and a vague 'weirdness' factor coming from equally weird people.
However, in his comeback speech, he said he was going to take on UKIP. Farage offered a showdown and Ed chickened out. Very unimpressive.
Yesterday, we were treated to his being roughed up by a manufactured pop starlette.
Why does his mother let him out to play with those rough UKIP boys and celebrity girls without his big brother David being on hand to see he doesn't come home with a bloody nose?
It'll be like being slapped by soggy quinoa leaves.
Are Labour supporters really as stupid as they are trying to make out tonight?
I presume it must be deliberate, but they are spectacularly missing the point regarding the fragrant Ms Klass.
The issue isn't whether the London House tax is popular, or whether Ms Klass is a woman of sound principles, or how rich she is, but something much more simple: that your leader, a PPE graduate, professional politician, experienced debater, former Cabinet minister, and (God help us) your candidate for Prime Minister in a few months' time, wasn't able to debate with her coherently.
You do see the point, I hope?
Ed's crapness/uselessness is something even most Labour supporters accept.
But the point, as far as I see it, is about the policy itself. People on the right are continually insisting that there's no public appetite for some "soak the rich" politics. But the reaction to Klassgate, with even top-rated Daily Mail comments being along the lines of "this greedy rich brat can cry me a river", shows that's clearly not true.
The LDs are probably not finished, not least because they're almost certainly not on 5% but more like 8. However, I wouldn't read too much into their past recoveries as a guide to the present.
I suspect you are correct, but at present it's about the only hope they have. It might have worked if UKIP had done well but gotten no seats and lost momentum after 2015, but they seem guaranteed to win some (no more than 5 I hope, I have money on that) and either have a referendum to prepare for or the lack of one to mobilize them still, not leaving much protest vote ground to return to the LDs.
Against which, there is barely a part of the Lib Dem electoral coalition that is not under attack from Con, Lab, UKIP, Green, nationalist, independents or others. They may not be unique among the old parties in having old certainties challenged but they are most vulnerable.
.
Sounds about right. A vulnerability without a clear fix at present. A shame, as it would be nice to have more than 2.5 major parties in UK terms, perhaps 2 big and 2 moderately sized, but it looks tough.
The LD leadership has GOT to come up with something fresh, dramatic and "go-for-able" immediately after Christmas.
Like what? "Everything we've done in the last 4.5 years has been a disastrous mistake, please forgive us we'll do it differently next time"? Cant see that being a winner.
Are Labour supporters really as stupid as they are trying to make out tonight?
I presume it must be deliberate, but they are spectacularly missing the point regarding the fragrant Ms Klass.
The issue isn't whether the London House tax is popular, or whether Ms Klass is a woman of sound principles, or how rich she is, but something much more simple: that your leader, a PPE graduate, professional politician, experienced debater, former Cabinet minister, and (God help us) your candidate for Prime Minister in a few months' time, wasn't able to debate with her coherently.
You do see the point, I hope?
Ed's crapness/uselessness is something even most Labour supporters accept.
But the point, as far as I see it, is about the policy itself. People on the right are continually insisting that there's no public appetite for some "soak the rich" politics. But the reaction to Klassgate, with even top-rated Daily Mail comments being along the lines of "this greedy rich brat can cry me a river", shows that's clearly not true.
Are Labour supporters really as stupid as they are trying to make out tonight?
I presume it must be deliberate, but they are spectacularly missing the point regarding the fragrant Ms Klass.
The issue isn't whether the London House tax is popular, or whether Ms Klass is a woman of sound principles, or how rich she is, but something much more simple: that your leader, a PPE graduate, professional politician, experienced debater, former Cabinet minister, and (God help us) your candidate for Prime Minister in a few months' time, wasn't able to debate with her coherently.
You do see the point, I hope?
Not intending to vote Labour myself - hopefully there will be a decent independent standing in my area - but I can certainly see that costing Ed M quite a bit, if not with this specific incident but if he repeats such happenings regularly. However, for one, he seems to do well enough debating Cameron instead, and for two, the policy Ed failed to debate on coherently, and others, is still popular enough that it could win him votes to cancel out at least some of the ones lost due to his own personal inadequacies. The popularity of the policies, or the Labour brand, are still very relevant even if Ed M is useless, if they can escape the Ed M drag factor and Cameron is hamstrung enough.
Are Labour supporters really as stupid as they are trying to make out tonight?
I presume it must be deliberate, but they are spectacularly missing the point regarding the fragrant Ms Klass.
The issue isn't whether the London House tax is popular, or whether Ms Klass is a woman of sound principles, or how rich she is, but something much more simple: that your leader, a PPE graduate, professional politician, experienced debater, former Cabinet minister, and (God help us) your candidate for Prime Minister in a few months' time, wasn't able to debate with her coherently. The more you diss her as an airhead or worse, the worse it makes your man look.
You do see the point, I hope?
Don't hold your breathe Richard, the spin just highlights the desperation.
Are Labour supporters really as stupid as they are trying to make out tonight?
I presume it must be deliberate, but they are spectacularly missing the point regarding the fragrant Ms Klass.
The issue isn't whether the London House tax is popular, or whether Ms Klass is a woman of sound principles, or how rich she is, but something much more simple: that your leader, a PPE graduate, professional politician, experienced debater, former Cabinet minister, and (God help us) your candidate for Prime Minister in a few months' time, wasn't able to debate with her coherently. The more you diss her as an airhead or worse, the worse it makes your man look.
You do see the point, I hope?
The difference is that Klass is an inoffensive celebrity, not a poltiician. She evidently doesn't know much about how tax or politics works, he was hardly going to tear her apart on a late night dumbed down ITV show and he wouldn't have got any credit even if he had done so.
The LDs are not finished for good, they've been down to fewer than 10 MPs before and. That the trend even now is for a decline means even recover with new leadership and a Labour government doing many of the same things as the Tories.
It's the reverse bandwagon effect alright. I said a long time ago that the LD did the same mistake in propping up the Tories as the Liberals in propping up Labour in 1923, it took them 40 years to show a sign of life and I expect it will take as long again for the LD to recover.
The Asquith-LG and National Coalition splits did far more damage to the Liberals than propping up Labour in 1924 (not 1923) did.
Sorry I thought it was 1923 not 1924, but anyway when they propped a Labour government most of the Liberal support melted away to the Tories out of fear of Labour in power and then what remained melted away to Labour in order to get rid of the Tories.
The same think has happened again with most of the LD support melting away out of fear and disagreement of propping a Tory government and now the prospect of the remains melting to the Tories in a last ditch effort to keep Labour out.
That's not entirely true. In 1923, the reunited Liberals gained 96 seats to win a total of 158 seats on 30% of the vote. It's true that they went backwards badly in 1924, losing over a hundred and taking just 18% but five years later they bounced back to 24%. What they did not bounce back in was seats, winning just 59. Even so, they would probably have been handily placed for the 1931 election had not Lloyd George fallen ill at the critical moment and had not the party then split in the absence of his leadership. Their decline was sealed by that split, not the events seven years earlier.
Three key events, similar to the 2010 LD disaster: 1. In 1916 they went into a coalition with the Tories due to the war, the leadership refused to get out of it after the war and the party split and hemorrhaged to Labour. 2. In 1924 they had recovered a lot and they could have formed a government but they choose to support a Labour government, as a result the Liberal vote splintered to both the Tories and Labour. 3. In 1931 the leadership again sided with the Tories in coalition and their vote evaporated.
In 1918 they were beaten by Labour, they never beat Labour again. In 1924 they lost the ability to be called a governing party, they never recovered. In 1931 they lost the ability to be called a major party, they needed 43 years to recover to that level.
History was a perfect guide to what happens when a liberal party goes into a coalition government, in 2010 the LD had a similar choice and they shot themselves like the last 3 times.
If Sporting Index were quick on the uptake, we'd have a spread betting index on the number of mentions of "Klass" or "Class" in tomorrow's Prime Minister's Questions.
The LDs are probably not finished, not least because they're almost certainly not on 5% but more like 8. However, I wouldn't read too much into their past recoveries as a guide to the present.
I suspect you are correct, but at present it's about the only hope they have. It might have worked if UKIP had done well but gotten no seats and lost momentum after 2015, but they seem guaranteed to win some (no more than 5 I hope, I have money on that) and either have a referendum to prepare for or the lack of one to mobilize them still, not leaving much protest vote ground to return to the LDs.
Against which, there is barely a part of the Lib Dem electoral coalition that is not under attack from Con, Lab, UKIP, Green, nationalist, independents or others. They may not be unique among the old parties in having old certainties challenged but they are most vulnerable.
.
Sounds about right. A vulnerability without a clear fix at present. A shame, as it would be nice to have more than 2.5 major parties in UK terms, perhaps 2 big and 2 moderately sized, but it looks tough.
The LD leadership has GOT to come up with something fresh, dramatic and "go-for-able" immediately after Christmas.
Like what? "Everything we've done in the last 4.5 years has been a disastrous mistake, please forgive us we'll do it differently next time"? Cant see that being a winner.
Claim hynotism was behind it all? Desperate times and all that.
The British public back Ed Miliband's plan to tax houses worth more than £2m, according to a poll from YouGov for The Times.
The survey found that 30% of respondents "tended to support" the "mansion tax" proposal and 42% of people "strongly supported" the policy.
But only 7% of respondents said they "strongly opposed" the idea and 11% said they "tended to oppose" the plan.
From The Times 24/9/14
Of course. The politics of envy. We all support a tax of someone else has to pay. I'd happily support a tax on vegan and halal food.
Wonder how many would support this tax if they had to pay it.
A fair point, but since most people won't and never will, they're free to enjoy seeing people complain about the prospect of it being implemented without worry.
Like what? "Everything we've done in the last 4.5 years has been a disastrous mistake, please forgive us we'll do it differently next time"? Cant see that being a winner.
Well, quite. They should have thought of that when they decided to spend much of the parliament agonising, whingeing, and laying into their coalition partners in the most intemperate and personalised way, a position which simply invites the question 'So why are you propping up this government then?'
Clearly they* don't like being in government, and voters are generously doing their best to try to ensure that the LibDems are spared from such suffering in the next parliament.
* With some honourable exceptions, such as Danny A and Steve Webb.
If it's not an outlier then the LD won't need a taxi, just 1% lower (within margin of error) at 4% they get 0 (I repeat ZERO) seats.
I think you're getting over-focussed on the vagaries of electoral calculus.
I know, but reasonably a national party can't escape UNS if it's at 5% or less.
Uniform national swing simply does not work mathematically when a party drops by as much as the Opinium poll suggests that the Lib Dems have dropped (and this is bad news for the Lib Dems).
They can hardly do much worse than UNS would imply at these levels. Given that there are seats they will win whatever their overall national vote share I would have thought they will outperform UNS in such circumstances.
But if they're dropping by 18% nationally, they don't even start off with 18% support from 2010 in a lot of seats -- therefore, logically, there will have to be bigger falls in seats with higher support to make up for it.
In the Scottish election in 2011, the Lib Dems actually fell MORE in seats they held than the national average fall.
But if they poll 4% then UNS would imply 0 seats - even they cant do worse than 0 seats.
Just a pedantic point - UNS on this poll (without adjustments for avoiding negative polls; setting LDs to 0 instead of 5) would give 8 seats.
Are Labour supporters really as stupid as they are trying to make out tonight?
I presume it must be deliberate, but they are spectacularly missing the point regarding the fragrant Ms Klass.
The issue isn't whether the London House tax is popular, or whether Ms Klass is a woman of sound principles, or how rich she is, but something much more simple: that your leader, a PPE graduate, professional politician, experienced debater, former Cabinet minister, and (God help us) your candidate for Prime Minister in a few months' time, wasn't able to debate with her coherently. The more you diss her as an airhead or worse, the worse it makes your man look.
You do see the point, I hope?
The difference is that Klass is an inoffensive celebrity, not a poltiician. She evidently doesn't know much about how tax or politics works, he was hardly going to tear her apart on a late night dumbed down ITV show and he wouldn't have got any credit even if he had done so.
From what I saw of the exchange Klass has a sounder grasp of how politics and taxation work than Labour's worst ever leader does.
Like what? "Everything we've done in the last 4.5 years has been a disastrous mistake, please forgive us we'll do it differently next time"? Cant see that being a winner.
Well, quite. They should have thought of that when they decided to spend much of the parliament agonising, whingeing, and laying into their coalition partners in the most intemperate and personalised way, a position which simply invites the question 'So why are you propping up this government then?'
Clearly they* don't like being in government, and voters are generously doing their best to try to ensure that the LibDems are spared from such suffering in the next parliament.
* With some honourable exceptions, such as Danny A and Steve Webb.
There are plenty of Tories who clearly dislike governing with the Lib Dems and who agonise, whinge and lay into their partners just as much.
Are Labour supporters really as stupid as they are trying to make out tonight?
I presume it must be deliberate, but they are spectacularly missing the point regarding the fragrant Ms Klass.
The issue isn't whether the London House tax is popular, or whether Ms Klass is a woman of sound principles, or how rich she is, but something much more simple: that your leader, a PPE graduate, professional politician, experienced debater, former Cabinet minister, and (God help us) your candidate for Prime Minister in a few months' time, wasn't able to debate with her coherently.
You do see the point, I hope?
Ed's crapness/uselessness is something even most Labour supporters accept.
But the point, as far as I see it, is about the policy itself. People on the right are continually insisting that there's no public appetite for some "soak the rich" politics. But the reaction to Klassgate, with even top-rated Daily Mail comments being along the lines of "this greedy rich brat can cry me a river", shows that's clearly not true.
But Ed should have had the courage of his convictions and the ability to courteously blunt Ms Klass's self-interested attacks. But he could not. NHS really cannot be the answer every single time. The fact that she is being attacked so widely today is a sign that EdM should have done so much better. But he could not. Because, unfortunately, he is crap.
The LDs are probably not finished, not least because they're almost certainly not on 5% but more like 8. However, I wouldn't read too much into their past recoveries as a guide to the present.
I suspect you are correct, but at present it's about the only hope they have. It might have worked if UKIP had done well but gotten no seats and lost momentum after 2015, but they seem guaranteed to win some (no more than 5 I hope, I have money on that) and either have a referendum to prepare for or the lack of one to mobilize them still, not leaving much protest vote ground to return to the LDs.
Against which, there is barely a part of the Lib Dem electoral coalition that is not under attack from Con, Lab, UKIP, Green, nationalist, independents or others. They may not be unique among the old parties in having old certainties challenged but they are most vulnerable.
.
Sounds about right. A vulnerability without a clear fix at present. A shame, as it would be nice to have more than 2.5 major parties in UK terms, perhaps 2 big and 2 moderately sized, but it looks tough.
The LD leadership has GOT to come up with something fresh, dramatic and "go-for-able" immediately after Christmas.
Like what? "Everything we've done in the last 4.5 years has been a disastrous mistake, please forgive us we'll do it differently next time"? Cant see that being a winner.
There are plenty of Tories who clearly dislike governing with the Lib Dems and who agonise, whinge and lay into their partners just as much.
True, but the Tories never said they wanted the New Politics, Parties Working Together and all that guff. The LibDems and their predecessors had been working for half a century to get into a coalition, so you might have expected them to have been really pleased to have succeeded in getting one at last, and to explain to us how wonderful coalitions are, especially since a major part of their politics is arguing for changing the voting system to guarantee coalition government.
Like what? "Everything we've done in the last 4.5 years has been a disastrous mistake, please forgive us we'll do it differently next time"? Cant see that being a winner.
Well, quite. They should have thought of that when they decided to spend much of the parliament agonising, whingeing, and laying into their coalition partners in the most intemperate and personalised way, a position which simply invites the question 'So why are you propping up this government then?'
Clearly they* don't like being in government, and voters are generously doing their best to try to ensure that the LibDems are spared from such suffering in the next parliament.
* With some honourable exceptions, such as Danny A and Steve Webb.
There are plenty of Tories who clearly dislike governing with the Lib Dems and who agonise, whinge and lay into their partners just as much.
Strictly speaking, those Tories agonise, whinge and lay into David Cameron rather than the Lib Dems.
Regarding the "criticising the Milibands over their IHT arrangements is moronic" comment I read from some genius on the previous thread, how is it any more moronic than weird Ed criticising Freud over his efforts to solve the problems faced by severely disabled people wanting to work? And he did that at PMQs ffs..
If it's not an outlier then the LD won't need a taxi, just 1% lower (within margin of error) at 4% they get 0 (I repeat ZERO) seats.
I think you're getting over-focussed on the vagaries of electoral calculus.
I know, but reasonably a national party can't escape UNS if it's at 5% or less.
Uniform national swing simply does not work mathematically when a party drops by as much as the Opinium poll suggests that the Lib Dems have dropped (and this is bad news for the Lib Dems).
They can hardly do much worse than UNS would imply at these levels. Given that there are seats they will win whatever their overall national vote share I would have thought they will outperform UNS in such circumstances.
But if they're dropping by 18% nationally, they don't even start off with 18% support from 2010 in a lot of seats -- therefore, logically, there will have to be bigger falls in seats with higher support to make up for it.
In the Scottish election in 2011, the Lib Dems actually fell MORE in seats they held than the national average fall.
But if they poll 4% then UNS would imply 0 seats - even they cant do worse than 0 seats.
Just a pedantic point - UNS on this poll (without adjustments for avoiding negative polls; setting LDs to 0 instead of 5) would give 8 seats.
Electoralcalculus doesn't use UNS.
That is true, they use a Strong Transition Model which ought to be more accurate than UNS, because it doesn't go bellow 0% in any seat.
Are Labour supporters really as stupid as they are trying to make out tonight?
I presume it must be deliberate, but they are spectacularly missing the point regarding the fragrant Ms Klass.
The issue isn't whether the London House tax is popular, or whether Ms Klass is a woman of sound principles, or how rich she is, but something much more simple: that your leader, a PPE graduate, professional politician, experienced debater, former Cabinet minister, and (God help us) your candidate for Prime Minister in a few months' time, wasn't able to debate with her coherently. The more you diss her as an airhead or worse, the worse it makes your man look.
You do see the point, I hope?
The difference is that Klass is an inoffensive celebrity, not a poltiician. She evidently doesn't know much about how tax or politics works, he was hardly going to tear her apart on a late night dumbed down ITV show and he wouldn't have got any credit even if he had done so.
Klass could well have more of an idea about tax and politics than Ed the Dud.
Anyhow, today's Mansion is tomorrow's Semi.
We all know where any new property tax will be applied as the thresholds creep ever lower.
The Asquith-LG and National Coalition splits did far more damage to the Liberals than propping up Labour in 1924 (not 1923) did.
Sorry I thought it was 1923 not 1924, but anyway when they propped a Labour government most of the Liberal support melted away to the Tories out of fear of Labour in power and then what remained melted away to Labour in order to get rid of the Tories.
The same think has happened again with most of the LD support melting away out of fear and disagreement of propping a Tory government and now the prospect of the remains melting to the Tories in a last ditch effort to keep Labour out.
That's not entirely true. In 1923, the reunited Liberals gained 96 seats to win a total of 158 seats on 30% of the vote. It's true that they went backwards badly in 1924, losing over a hundred and taking just 18% but five years later they bounced back to 24%. What they did not bounce back in was seats, winning just 59. Even so, they would probably have been handily placed for the 1931 election had not Lloyd George fallen ill at the critical moment and had not the party then split in the absence of his leadership. Their decline was sealed by that split, not the events seven years earlier.
Three key events, similar to the 2010 LD disaster: 1. In 1916 they went into a coalition with the Tories due to the war, the leadership refused to get out of it after the war and the party split and hemorrhaged to Labour. 2. In 1924 they had recovered a lot and they could have formed a government but they choose to support a Labour government, as a result the Liberal vote splintered to both the Tories and Labour. 3. In 1931 the leadership again sided with the Tories in coalition and their vote evaporated.
In 1918 they were beaten by Labour, they never beat Labour again. In 1924 they lost the ability to be called a governing party, they never recovered. In 1931 they lost the ability to be called a major party, they needed 43 years to recover to that level.
History was a perfect guide to what happens when a liberal party goes into a coalition government, in 2010 the LD had a similar choice and they shot themselves like the last 3 times.
I'd agree with all that. I would however add a little extra to the first point about 1916. It wasn't The Liberals that went into coalition with the Tories but a section of them. That split both enabled Labour to slip out from under their wing and to take second place from them. Had Asquith resigned the leadership as well as the premiership, Labour's rise would have been much slower.
Speedy said: History was a perfect guide to what happens when a liberal party goes into a coalition government, in 2010 the LD had a similar choice and they shot themselves like the last 3 times.
And my reply is:
Oh come on. Look back to 2010. What was the alternative? Never mind for the LD's, for the country.
The LDs are not finished for good, they've been down to fewer than 10 MPs before and survived in previous incarnations … It's hard to see how they can get a reasonable result out of 2015 now, and avoiding disaster is the best they can hope for.
I agree.
Speedy , having declared the LibDems 'finished for good' you're not prepared to back that up with a wager? I'm the first to disapprove of 'betcha' type responses, but do you want to retract your assertion? If not, fancy backing it up with a bet? What would 'finished' be in your book? Less than 5 MPs?
By the way, let's not forget that the huge constituency beneficiaries of a LibDem slump would be the Tories.
There are plenty of Tories who clearly dislike governing with the Lib Dems and who agonise, whinge and lay into their partners just as much.
True, but the Tories never said they wanted the New Politics, Parties Working Together and all that guff. The LibDems and their predecessors had been working for half a century to get into a coalition, so you might have expected them to have been really pleased to have succeeded at last, and to explain to us how wonderful coalitions are.
I think technically that is supposed to still be the line, what with the occasional 'better a coalition than either big party governing alone' kind of comment, which to be frank works for me, but the depths of their woes has been worse and more sustained than expected, too many jumped ship immediately, and the need to try to distance from the Tories became greater and earlier than planned for, far too early to actually wind up the coalition, so it came across even more phony than might otherwise have been the case.
Are Labour supporters really as stupid as they are trying to make out tonight?
I presume it must be deliberate, but they are spectacularly missing the point regarding the fragrant Ms Klass.
The issue isn't whether the London House tax is popular, or whether Ms Klass is a woman of sound principles, or how rich she is, but something much more simple: that your leader, a PPE graduate, professional politician, experienced debater, former Cabinet minister, and (God help us) your candidate for Prime Minister in a few months' time, wasn't able to debate with her coherently.
You do see the point, I hope?
Ed's crapness/uselessness is something even most Labour supporters accept.
But the point, as far as I see it, is about the policy itself. People on the right are continually insisting that there's no public appetite for some "soak the rich" politics. But the reaction to Klassgate, with even top-rated Daily Mail comments being along the lines of "this greedy rich brat can cry me a river", shows that's clearly not true.
But Ed should have had the courage of his convictions and the ability to courteously blunt Ms Klass's self-interested attacks. But he could not. NHS really cannot be the answer every single time. The fact that she is being attacked so widely today is a sign that EdM should have done so much better. But he could not. Because, unfortunately, he is crap.
Oh I completely agree with that (and it's why I'd prefer to have Alan Johnson as leader, even if Johnson's own politics are slightly less "left-wing" than Ed's), but sadly I've got used to Ed dismally failing to score open goals.
I simply had to laugh out loud when I read in the thread header that this poll "wasn't intended for publication", all the more so as we are always being told, I'm sure quite correctly, just how incredibly expensive such polls are to undertake - so the suspicion inevitably has to be that the results didn't fit the bill for whatever reason. It will be interesting to see if we are now set for a series of polls showing Tory leads. OGH makes the point that "Labour is clearly suffering from the seepage of support in Scotland". I haven't yet seen the indicated share of the vote received by the Greens in this Opinium poll, but I wonder whether Labour is also suffering as a result of the strengthening level of support in that direction which has been evident elsewhere. Given their far left positioning, it seems unlikely that such support could come other than from Labour.
The LDs are not finished for good, they've been down to fewer than 10 MPs before and. That the trend even now is for a decline means even recover with new leadership and a Labour government doing many of the same things as the Tories.
It's the reverse bandwagon effect alright. I said a long time ago that the LD did the same mistake in propping up the Tories as the Liberals in propping up Labour in 1923, it took them 40 years to show a sign of life and I expect it will take as long again for the LD to recover.
The Asquith-LG and National Coalition splits did far more damage to the Liberals than propping up Labour in 1924 (not 1923) did.
.
.
Three key events, similar to the 2010 LD disaster: 1. In 1916 they went into a coalition with the Tories due to the war, the leadership refused to get out of it after the war and the party split and hemorrhaged to Labour. 2. In 1924 they had recovered a lot and they could have formed a government but they choose to support a Labour government, as a result the Liberal vote splintered to both the Tories and Labour. 3. In 1931 the leadership again sided with the Tories in coalition and their vote evaporated.
In 1918 they were beaten by Labour, they never beat Labour again. In 1924 they lost the ability to be called a governing party, they never recovered. In 1931 they lost the ability to be called a major party, they needed 43 years to recover to that level.
History was a perfect guide to what happens when a liberal party goes into a coalition government, in 2010 the LD had a similar choice and they shot themselves like the last 3 times.
You mean you're either unaware of or are choosing to ignore other coalitions there were in before that (notably with the Irish Parliamentary Party among other?).
Not to mention that you're mis-representing the details of 1 (the party split during the war, not after).
Also missing out a key point of 2 (the key point being the organisational split, notably with Lloyd George controlling and refusing to allow access to large amounts of funding leading to very limited candidate numbers and campaigning capacity, the most important reason behind Liberal fall in that election).
3 is an arbitrary definition. You could equally have said it about 1924 or 1929 depending on your definition of major party. And also overlooks the party split that was again the vital factor.
The LDs are not finished for good, they've been down to fewer than 10 MPs before and survived in previous incarnations … It's hard to see how they can get a reasonable result out of 2015 now, and avoiding disaster is the best they can hope for.
I agree.
Speedy , having declared the LibDems 'finished for good' you're not prepared to back that up with a wager? I'm the first to disapprove of 'betcha' type responses, but do you want to retract your assertion? If not, fancy backing it up with a bet? What would 'finished' be in your book? Less than 5 MPs?
By the way, let's not forget that the huge constituency beneficiaries of a LibDem slump would be the Tories.
That's a bit of a long term bet isn't it? The only way you can test if the LDs are "finished for good" is whether they can bounce back from a heavy defeat. So you would be looking to the 2020 or 2025 election.
Speedy said: History was a perfect guide to what happens when a liberal party goes into a coalition government, in 2010 the LD had a similar choice and they shot themselves like the last 3 times.
And my reply is:
Oh come on. Look back to 2010. What was the alternative? Never mind for the LD's, for the country.
The alternative was a minority Tory government and a second election after a few months, a clear repeat of 1974. It would have saved both the LD and the Tories from the compromises of coalition that resulted in the collapse of the LD and the rise of UKIP.
Labour might salvage something from this Klass debacle if they play the victim card: Ed was bullied and humiliated by a privileged member of the cultural elite when he was only trying his best etc. That would boost Ed in the eyes of those who sympathize with the downtrodden; moreover a snipe at the artistic community might tap into a bit of UKIP philistinism. There's time to turn this around!
The LDs are not finished for good, they've been down to fewer than 10 MPs before and survived in previous incarnations … It's hard to see how they can get a reasonable result out of 2015 now, and avoiding disaster is the best they can hope for.
I agree.
Speedy , having declared the LibDems 'finished for good' you're not prepared to back that up with a wager? I'm the first to disapprove of 'betcha' type responses, but do you want to retract your assertion? If not, fancy backing it up with a bet? What would 'finished' be in your book? Less than 5 MPs?
By the way, let's not forget that the huge constituency beneficiaries of a LibDem slump would be the Tories.
That's a bit of a long term bet isn't it? The only way you can test if the LDs are "finished for good" is whether they can bounce back from a heavy defeat. So you would be looking to the 2020 or 2025 election.
Good point.
2015 would be fine for me. Presumably Speedy reckons that should be their nadir, so what would that look like to represent 'finished'? 5 MPs? Or more?
I saw the listing for, is it the 'Agenda', saw that Miliband was on it and thought he must be there for a soft interview. Couldn't be bothered to watch it because he's such a gimp.
The LDs are not finished for good, they've been down to fewer than 10 MPs before and survived in previous incarnations … It's hard to see how they can get a reasonable result out of 2015 now, and avoiding disaster is the best they can hope for.
I agree.
Speedy , having declared the LibDems 'finished for good' you're not prepared to back that up with a wager? I'm the first to disapprove of 'betcha' type responses, but do you want to retract your assertion? If not, fancy backing it up with a bet? What would 'finished' be in your book? Less than 5 MPs?
By the way, let's not forget that the huge constituency beneficiaries of a LibDem slump would be the Tories.
I should have added finished for 43 years but since we might not live to see a LD recovery to 23% in our life times I preferred to simply say "for good". But with the LD at 5% who can dispute that Clegg's political career won't be finished for good if they score at that level?
The Asquith-LG and National Coalition splits did far more damage to the Liberals than propping up Labour in 1924 (not 1923) did.
Sorry I thought it was 1923 not 1924, but anyway when they propped a Labour government most of the Liberal support melted away to the Tories out of fear of Labour in power and then what remained melted away to Labour in order to get rid of the Tories.
The same think has happened again with most of the LD support melting away out of fear and disagreement of propping a Tory government and now the prospect of the remains melting to the Tories in a last ditch effort to keep Labour out.
That's not entirely true. In 1923, the reunited Liberals gained 96 seats to win a total of 158 seats on 30% of the vote. It's true that they went backwards badly in 1924, losing over a hundred and taking just 18% but five years later they bounced back to 24%. What they did not bounce back in was seats, winning just 59. Even so, they would probably have been handily placed for the 1931 election had not Lloyd George fallen ill at the critical moment and had not the party then split in the absence of his leadership. Their decline was sealed by that split, not the events seven years earlier.
Three key events, similar to the 2010 LD disaster: 1. In 1916 they went into a coalition with the Tories due to the war, the leadership refused to get out of it after the war and the party split and hemorrhaged to Labour. 2. In 1924 they had recovered a lot and they could have formed a government but they choose to support a Labour government, as a result the Liberal vote splintered to both the Tories and Labour. 3. In 1931 the leadership again sided with the Tories in coalition and their vote evaporated.
In 1918 they were beaten by Labour, they never beat Labour again. In 1924 they lost the ability to be called a governing party, they never recovered. In 1931 they lost the ability to be called a major party, they needed 43 years to recover to that level.
History was a perfect guide to what happens when a liberal party goes into a coalition government, in 2010 the LD had a similar choice and they shot themselves like the last 3 times.
I'd agree with all that. I would however add a little extra to the first point about 1916. It wasn't The Liberals that went into coalition with the Tories but a section of them. That split both enabled Labour to slip out from under their wing and to take second place from them. Had Asquith resigned the leadership as well as the premiership, Labour's rise would have been much slower.
Come now Mr Herdson, I expect better of your history.
The British public back Ed Miliband's plan to tax houses worth more than £2m, according to a poll from YouGov for The Times. The survey found that 30% of respondents "tended to support" the "mansion tax" proposal and 42% of people "strongly supported" the policy. But only 7% of respondents said they "strongly opposed" the idea and 11% said they "tended to oppose" the plan. From The Times 24/9/14
Yes I expected that. Does not make it a good idea economically for all. Just another Socialist policy.
Are Labour supporters really as stupid as they are trying to make out tonight?
I presume it must be deliberate, but they are spectacularly missing the point regarding the fragrant Ms Klass.
The issue isn't whether the London House tax is popular, or whether Ms Klass is a woman of sound principles, or how rich she is, but something much more simple: that your leader, a PPE graduate, professional politician, experienced debater, former Cabinet minister, and (God help us) your candidate for Prime Minister in a few months' time, wasn't able to debate with her coherently. The more you diss her as an airhead or worse, the worse it makes your man look.
You do see the point, I hope?
The difference is that Klass is an inoffensive celebrity, not a poltiician. She evidently doesn't know much about how tax or politics works, he was hardly going to tear her apart on a late night dumbed down ITV show and he wouldn't have got any credit even if he had done so.
Klass could well have more of an idea about tax and politics than Ed the Dud.
Anyhow, today's Mansion is tomorrow's Semi.
We all know where any new property tax will be applied as the thresholds creep ever lower.
The simple fact is she made a laughable error by saying £2m only buys one a garage. I cannot see how this is "bad for Ed" outside of these fair pages, where almost everything is deemed bad for Ed. I suspect it will make no difference whatsoever
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.
It would go down well, because the land value tax would result in a drastic reduction or even abolition of Council Tax, which disproportionally hits the people you refer to while multi millionaires pay a few hundred more than they do in council tax for their band H pads in Westminster or Wandsworth. As do the local gentry in their band H country mansions.
The big juicy target in taxation is not income, its very valuable immovable assets, held by a proportionally very small portion of the electorate.
And if that causes house prices to collapse then that is the best news the country has had in years because young people will be able to afford somewhere to live again.
You obviously live in social subsidised housing then
The LDs are probably not finished, not least because they're almost certainly not on 5% but more like 8. However, I wouldn't read too much into their past recoveries as a guide to the present.
I suspect you are correct, but at present it's about the only hope they have. It might have worked if UKIP had done well but gotten no seats and lost momentum after 2015, but they seem guaranteed to win some (no more than 5 I hope, I have money on that) and either have a referendum to prepare for or the lack of one to mobilize them still, not leaving much protest vote ground to return to the LDs.
Against which, there is barely a part of the Lib Dem electoral coalition that is not under attack from Con, Lab, UKIP, Green, nationalist, independents or others. They may not be unique among the old parties in having old certainties challenged but they are most vulnerable.
.
Sounds about right. A vulnerability without a clear fix at present. A shame, as it would be nice to have more than 2.5 major parties in UK terms, perhaps 2 big and 2 moderately sized, but it looks tough.
The LD leadership has GOT to come up with something fresh, dramatic and "go-for-able" immediately after Christmas.
At the moment they seem to be in the position of the old Punch (remember that?) cartoon, where a squad of trainees is marching towards a cliff. The drill sergeant looks on, struck dumb!
The caption reads "Say SOMETHING, if it's only Goodbye!"
And Clegg is, in this context, the drill sergeant.
I'm one of those who thought in 2010 that "there was no alternative" but there must some sort of opportunity somewhere now. Surely to God!
Given the LibDems' seemingly desperate position, I would have thought that "immediately" would be the appropriate strategy, omitting the words "after Christmas".
Very few public polls to go on, Andy, but there will be the private polls conducted by each Party, plus of course the 'feel' that experienced workers on the ground will be getting.
Reckless knows the terrain and if it were close I'm sure we'd be seeing bigger than 1.02 a UKIP win. That price in itself suggests to me that UKIP must be at least 10% clear (although nowhere near the 50% of MedwayExpress voodoo poll fame!)
Quite a lot has happened in Rochester since the last poll, we've had the debates which quite a few people might have seen. Also the Conservatives comments about house prices, the fuss about TTIP and the straight choice leaflet may not have gone down well. If there has been a late swing to UKIP then Ashcroft and Survation's polls could be way out from the actual result again.
The LDs are probably not finished, not least because they're almost certainly not on 5% but more like 8. However, I wouldn't read too much into their past recoveries as a guide to the present.
I suspect you are correct, but at present it's about the only hope they have. It might have worked if UKIP had done well but gotten no seats and lost momentum after 2015, but they seem guaranteed to win some (no more than 5 I hope, I have money on that) and either have a referendum to prepare for or the lack of one to mobilize them still, not leaving much protest vote ground to return to the LDs.
Against which, there is barely a part of the Lib Dem electoral coalition that is not under attack from Con, Lab, UKIP, Green, nationalist, independents or others. They may not be unique among the old parties in having old certainties challenged but they are most vulnerable.
.
Sounds about right. A vulnerability without a clear fix at present. A shame, as it would be nice to have more than 2.5 major parties in UK terms, perhaps 2 big and 2 moderately sized, but it looks tough.
The LD leadership has GOT to come up with something fresh, dramatic and "go-for-able" immediately after Christmas.
At the moment they seem to be in the position of the old Punch (remember that?) cartoon, where a squad of trainees is marching towards a cliff. The drill sergeant looks on, struck dumb!
The caption reads "Say SOMETHING, if it's only Goodbye!"
And Clegg is, in this context, the drill sergeant.
I'm one of those who thought in 2010 that "there was no alternative" but there must some sort of opportunity somewhere now. Surely to God!
Given the LibDems' seemingly desperate position, I would have thought that "immediately" would be the appropriate strategy, omitting the words "after Christmas".
Remember that in last month's Ashcroft polling the LDs and CON were level-pegging on 32% in 12 key seats the yellows were defending. This was a 2% LD>CON swing since GE10.
General Election not fought on national aggregate votes shares but in 650 separate seats under first past the post.
Re: Opinium. So after the latest LD tantrum in Govt with Norman Baker throwing a hissy fit at his ex nasty boss Mrs May, the LDs are rewarded with 5% in the polling. Just rewards?
Speedy said: History was a perfect guide to what happens when a liberal party goes into a coalition government, in 2010 the LD had a similar choice and they shot themselves like the last 3 times.
And my reply is:
Oh come on. Look back to 2010. What was the alternative? Never mind for the LD's, for the country.
The alternative was a minority Tory government and a second election after a few months, a clear repeat of 1974. It would have saved both the LD and the Tories from the compromises of coalition that resulted in the collapse of the LD and the rise of UKIP.
I suggest you look back at the Press at the time. They were talking about a run on the pound, economic collapse, plague of frogs etc. Whether that would have happened of course, we'll never know.
Labour might salvage something from this Klass debacle if they play the victim card: Ed was bullied and humiliated by a privileged member of the cultural elite when he was only trying his best etc. That would boost Ed in the eyes of those who sympathize with the downtrodden; moreover a snipe at the artistic community might tap into a bit of UKIP philistinism. There's time to turn this around!
Whilst Ed is still crap , it did show how out of touch Tories are in this country, the dozy mare did not even have the brains to realise that the majority of people struggle to survive rather than paying £2 million for garages. Thick as mince z lister Tory.
The LDs are not finished for good, they've been down to fewer than 10 MPs before and. That the trend even now is for a decline means even recover with new leadership and a Labour government doing many of the same things as the Tories.
to recover.
The Asquith-LG and National Coalition splits did far more damage to the Liberals than propping up Labour in 1924 (not 1923) did.
.
.
History was a perfect guide to what happens when a liberal party goes into a coalition government, in 2010 the LD had a similar choice and they shot themselves like the last 3 times.
You mean you're either unaware of or are choosing to ignore other coalitions there were in before that (notably with the Irish Parliamentary Party among other?).
Not to mention that you're mis-representing the details of 1 (the party split during the war, not after).
Also missing out a key point of 2 (the key point being the organisational split, notably with Lloyd George controlling and refusing to allow access to large amounts of funding leading to very limited candidate numbers and campaigning capacity, the most important reason behind Liberal fall in that election).
3 is an arbitrary definition. You could equally have said it about 1924 or 1929 depending on your definition of major party. And also overlooks the party split that was again the vital factor.
Poor effort and understanding.
Coalitions with the Irish is not a coalition with a national party. On 1. there is no dispute that the coalition gave space for Labour to rise. On 2, who says that the LD won't do the same in 2015? They have a similar strategy of putting everything on 50 seats. On.3 my definition for major party is more than 10% of the vote and 10 seats, which is pretty straightforward.
And my conclusion stands not only in Britain but throughout the world, coalition governments between major parties is damaging to both and perhaps terminal to the smaller partner.
The Asquith-LG and National Coalition splits did far more damage to the Liberals than propping up Labour in 1924 (not 1923) did.
Sorry I thought it was 1923 not 1924, but anyway when they propped a Labour government most of the Liberal support melted away to the Tories out of fear of Labour in power and then what remained melted away to Labour in order to get rid of the Tories.
The same think has happened again with most of the LD support melting away out of fear and disagreement of propping a Tory government and now the prospect of the remains melting to the Tories in a last ditch effort to keep Labour out.
ip. Their decline was sealed by that split, not the events seven years earlier.
Three key events, similar to the 2010 LD disaster: 1. In 1916 they went into a coalition with the Tories due to the war, the leadership refused to get out of it after the war and the party split and hemorrhaged to Labour. 2. In 1924 they had recovered a lot and they could have formed a government but they choose to support a Labour government, as a result the Liberal vote splintered to both the Tories and Labour. 3. In 1931 the leadership again sided with the Tories in coalition and their vote evaporated.
In 1918 they were beaten by Labour, they never beat Labour again. In 1924 they lost the ability to be called a governing party, they never recovered. In 1931 they lost the ability to be called a major party, they needed 43 years to recover to that level.
History was a perfect guide to what happens when a liberal party goes into a coalition government, in 2010 the LD had a similar choice and they shot themselves like the last 3 times.
I'd agree with all that. I would however add a little extra to the first point about 1916. It wasn't The Liberals that went into coalition with the Tories but a section of them. That split both enabled Labour to slip out from under their wing and to take second place from them. Had Asquith resigned the leadership as well as the premiership, Labour's rise would have been much slower.
Come now Mr Herdson, I expect better of your history.
Labour's rise was surely inexorable.
Whatever the LDs offered the working classes, Labour could outbid them.
Speedy said: History was a perfect guide to what happens when a liberal party goes into a coalition government, in 2010 the LD had a similar choice and they shot themselves like the last 3 times.
And my reply is:
Oh come on. Look back to 2010. What was the alternative? Never mind for the LD's, for the country.
The alternative was a minority Tory government and a second election after a few months, a clear repeat of 1974. It would have saved both the LD and the Tories from the compromises of coalition that resulted in the collapse of the LD and the rise of UKIP.
I suggest you look back at the Press at the time. They were talking about a run on the pound, economic collapse, plague of frogs etc. Whether that would have happened of course, we'll never know.
Any serious man would never believe those things about the end of the world if party A and party B don't get to bed together. In 1974 things were much much serious economically and socially, there were talks of revolution or military coup in a midst of a real crisis on all fronts and a 3 day week, and still there was no coalition government.
Very few public polls to go on, Andy, but there will be the private polls conducted by each Party, plus of course the 'feel' that experienced workers on the ground will be getting.
Reckless knows the terrain and if it were close I'm sure we'd be seeing bigger than 1.02 a UKIP win. That price in itself suggests to me that UKIP must be at least 10% clear (although nowhere near the 50% of MedwayExpress voodoo poll fame!)
Disclaimer: I have a bet on UKIP getting 50-55% at 10/1. It's now about 5/1.
Labour might salvage something from this Klass debacle if they play the victim card: Ed was bullied and humiliated by a privileged member of the cultural elite when he was only trying his best etc. That would boost Ed in the eyes of those who sympathize with the downtrodden; moreover a snipe at the artistic community might tap into a bit of UKIP philistinism. There's time to turn this around!
Whilst Ed is still crap , it did show how out of touch Tories are in this country, the dozy mare did not even have the brains to realise that the majority of people struggle to survive rather than paying £2 million for garages. Thick as mince z lister Tory.
'Dozy mare'
I imagine you're the kind of Neanderthal who'd think nothing of giving her some physical encouragement to get back into her place.
FPT..The Mansion tax will soon be applied to a 3 bed inner city terrace..anyone who thinks it wont be is a fool...
Not if it is in the form of bands I,J,K,L,M,N,O,P,Q,R,S etc. of the Council tax. That would likely involve people in bands A-G paying less council tax.
But that's not Labour's proposal is it?
They seem to be saying that people in houses worth between £2 - 3 mio will only pay £250 per month more and that people in houses worth even more will pay squillions. But the sums raised are either footling amounts which will achieve the square root of bugger all in relation to the NHS or the amounts paid will have to be very very much greater or the threshold will have to come down significantly at which point we're not talking about taxing rich luvvies but about taxing the squeezed middle of which Labour used to be so fond.
It doesn't really add up.
If they're going to tax property why not use the revenues to build houses. I'm fed up with the NHS being seen as the only legitimate expense of government as if it's some sort of sacred cow. It is one of many competing priorities and it's about time all parties understood that.
Can't disagree with much of that. I
think the extra money for the NHS meme isn't realy to "save the NHS" its to save the workers there, who mostly vote Labour from wholesale restructuring along the lines of the nationalised industries in the 1980s, when inefficient practices were stripped out wholesale. Unfortunately the Tories then privatised them and introduced another set of inefficiencies as a result.
Quite a lot has happened in Rochester since the last poll, we've had the debates which quite a few people might have seen. Also the Conservatives comments about house prices, the fuss about TTIP and the straight choice leaflet may not have gone down well. If there has been a late swing to UKIP then Ashcroft and Survation's polls could be way out from the actual result again.
Being junior coalition partner is a tough job but someone has to do it.
I thought that the GPEW policy was to eschew Coalition in favour of tolerating a minority executive and having more open debate on a policy by policy basis in Parliament?
Farcical scenes before England v Scotland match. Scottish fans boo 'God Save the Queen' despite having the fact she is their Queen too and they have just voted to stay in the UK. Then some England fans boo 'Flower of Scotland', not much love lost in this match!
On the Survation Scotland poll earlier, of course according to the poll 88% of Yes voters are now voting SNP, the SNP were on 46% at indyref the won 45% and the indyref poll in Survation shows No still would win 53-47%. Unionist voters may well tactically vote against the SNP, for example the Tories voting LD or Labour. Ultimately as in Quebec Jean Charest, a former PC leader came to lead the Quebec Liberals back to power showing how cross party cooperation can emerge. Once a new Labour leader emerges and devomax legislation is introduced in January after the Smith Commission reports we may see the SNP total decline.
Salmond now clearly moving towards being 'kingmaker' in a UK minority government, he has to win his seat first
Coalitions with the Irish is not a coalition with a national party. On 1. there is no dispute that the coalition gave space for Labour to rise. On 2, who says that the LD won't do the same in 2015? They have a similar strategy of putting everything on 50 seats. On.3 my definition for major party is more than 10% of the vote and 10 seats, which is pretty straightforward.
And my conclusion stands not only in Britain but throughout the world, coalition governments between major parties is damaging to both and perhaps terminal to the smaller partner.
Any more caveats to add? What's your opinion on the mid-19th century 'coalitions' of Whigs, Peelites etc?
1. There's plenty of dispute about whether it was coalition per se or the party split was more important (or both were below inexorable winds of change).
2. Erm, anyone who's even vaguely paying attention. The Liberals only managed to stand candidates in about half the seats in 1924 (linking back to the earlier party split that was continuing, Lloyd George sitting on the cash etc). And if you really delve deep (Chris Cook has done excellent work on this) you find the incredible scale of the disorganisation and disarray of the party at that time.
3. What a conveniently arbitrary definition, which is also nonsense. It makes the Liberals a major party in 1974 and on the cusp of being so in several elections before that. They were nothing like major at those times.
Your conclusion is not supported by your argument, given how narrowly it is formed, how poorly the points are made, and how clearly it has been written with the answer already in mind rather than observing and analysing the evidence and letting that guide you.
If you want to make an argument about the fate junior coalition partners around the world (featuring Germany etc I presume) then feel free. Off the top of my head there's convincing evidence out there.
Speedy said: History was a perfect guide to what happens when a liberal party goes into a coalition government, in 2010 the LD had a similar choice and they shot themselves like the last 3 times.
And my reply is:
Oh come on. Look back to 2010. What was the alternative? Never mind for the LD's, for the country.
The alternative was a minority Tory government and a second election after a few months, a clear repeat of 1974. It would have saved both the LD and the Tories from the compromises of coalition that resulted in the collapse of the LD and the rise of UKIP.
I suggest you look back at the Press at the time. They were talking about a run on the pound, economic collapse, plague of frogs etc. Whether that would have happened of course, we'll never know.
Any serious man would never believe those things about the end of the world if party A and party B don't get to bed together. In 1974 things were much much serious economically and socially, there were talks of revolution or military coup in a midst of a real crisis on all fronts and a 3 day week, and still there was no coalition government.
The main problems in '74 were:-
i) the arrival of the first hung parliament in 45 years took everyone by surprise. Thorpe in particular had no mandate from his own party to begin coalition negotiations, although he led Heath a fine dance over the weekend.
ii) the Liberals alone did not have enough seats to provide anyone with a parliamentary majority in any case.
James Matthews @jamesmatthewsky · 13m13 minutes ago England fans chanting: 'You're just a small town in England'. Scotland fans: 'Jimmy Savile, he's one of your own'
Are Labour supporters really as stupid as they are trying to make out tonight?
I presume it must be deliberate, but they are spectacularly missing the point regarding the fragrant Ms Klass.
The issue isn't whether the London House tax is popular, or whether Ms Klass is a woman of sound principles, or how rich she is, but something much more simple: that your leader, a PPE graduate, professional politician, experienced debater, former Cabinet minister, and (God help us) your candidate for Prime Minister in a few months' time, wasn't able to debate with her coherently. The more you diss her as an airhead or worse, the worse it makes your man look.
You do see the point, I hope?
The difference is that Klass is an inoffensive celebrity, not a poltiician. She evidently doesn't know much about how tax or politics works, he was hardly going to tear her apart on a late night dumbed down ITV show and he wouldn't have got any credit even if he had done so.
Klass could well have more of an idea about tax and politics than Ed the Dud.
Anyhow, today's Mansion is tomorrow's Semi.
We all know where any new property tax will be applied as the thresholds creep ever lower.
The Asquith-LG and National Coalition splits did far more damage to the Liberals than propping up Labour in 1924 (not 1923) did.
Sorry I thought it was 1923 not 1924, but anyway when they propped a Labour government most of the Liberal support melted away to the Tories out of fear of Labour in power and then what remained melted away to Labour in order to get rid of the Tories.
The same think has happened again with most of the LD support melting away out of fear and disagreement of propping a Tory government and now the prospect of the remains melting to the Tories in a last ditch effort to keep Labour out.
ip. Their decline was sealed by that split, not the events seven years earlier.
History was a perfect guide to what happens when a liberal party goes into a coalition government, in 2010 the LD had a similar choice and they shot themselves like the last 3 times.
I'd agree with all that. I would however add a little extra to the first point about 1916. It wasn't The Liberals that went into coalition with the Tories but a section of them. That split both enabled Labour to slip out from under their wing and to take second place from them. Had Asquith resigned the leadership as well as the premiership, Labour's rise would have been much slower.
Come now Mr Herdson, I expect better of your history.
Labour's rise was surely inexorable.
Whatever the LDs offered the working classes, Labour could outbid them.
*shrugs* maybe.
There's libraries of argument about this kind of thing (I think comparisons with Aus and NZ at similar times feature heavily). Would the Liberals just have shifted in a more Radical direction, could 3 party politics have lasted (we were incredibly close to getting rid of FPTP on more than one occasion).
I'm rather wary of the idea of inexorable history.
Regarding the "criticising the Milibands over their IHT arrangements is moronic" comment I read from some genius on the previous thread, how is it any more moronic than weird Ed criticising Freud over his efforts to solve the problems faced by severely disabled people wanting to work? And he did that at PMQs ffs..
I've never had any issue with the mili's being sensible on IHT.
It's when the guy goes all hypocritical t0sser when anyone else does the same kind of thing. Why genuine Labour types actual support the posh boy is beyond me.
A few posters, only yesterday, were chiding me for the 'wishful thinking' of my Tory vote forecasts. I hope they are feeling suitably chaste today.
Yes, Nick Palmer, I'm thinking of you.
Moi? I haven't chided you for years, if ever.
You tried a little rib yesterday in response to one of my posts, on the thread where Labour had a 1% Ashcroft lead: 'I recall you saying polling would become significant in November'
James Matthews @jamesmatthewsky · 13m13 minutes ago England fans chanting: 'You're just a small town in England'. Scotland fans: 'Jimmy Savile, he's one of your own'
Coalitions with the Irish is not a coalition with a national party. On 1. there is no dispute that the coalition gave space for Labour to rise. On 2, who says that the LD won't do the same in 2015? They have a similar strategy of putting everything on 50 seats. On.3 my definition for major party is more than 10% of the vote and 10 seats, which is pretty straightforward.
And my conclusion stands not only in Britain but throughout the world, coalition governments between major parties is damaging to both and perhaps terminal to the smaller partner.
Any more caveats to add? What's your opinion on the mid-19th century 'coalitions' of Whigs, Peelites etc?
1. There's plenty of dispute about whether it was coalition per se or the party split was more important (or both were below inexorable winds of change).
2. Erm, anyone who's even vaguely paying attention. The Liberals only managed to stand candidates in about half the seats in 1924 (linking back to the earlier party split that was continuing, Lloyd George sitting on the cash etc). And if you really delve deep (Chris Cook has done excellent work on this) you find the incredible scale of the disorganisation and disarray of the party at that time.
3. What a conveniently arbitrary definition, which is also nonsense. It makes the Liberals a major party in 1974 and on the cusp of being so in several elections before that. They were nothing like major at those times.
Your conclusion is not supported by your argument, given how narrowly it is formed, how poorly the points are made, and how clearly it has been written with the answer already in mind rather than observing and analysing the evidence and letting that guide you.
If you want to make an argument about the fate junior coalition partners around the world (featuring Germany etc I presume) then feel free. Off the top of my head there's convincing evidence out there.
But your argument doesn't stand up.
That I have forced you to go all the way back before universal suffrage to find excuses proves my argument quite well. And in case you haven't heard there was a Liberal revival culminated in 1974, after which it was a 2.5 party system.
You may not like him - I find him so inscrutable I suspect he is secretly chinese - but Salmond is the only politician of the last 40 years of the same stature as Thatcher and Blair. Just look at his achievements: he got the FM ship, he got the referendum, he got that Yougov and The Vow, he left an SNP to be the hammer of the Labour Scots. OK he lost the referendum - we noticed - though why the dimmer PB tories are inclined to award themselves campaign medals for his defeat is obscure; but even in losing he did something epochal in securing a democratic mandate for the Act of Union after 307 years. And to the connoisseur of political betting, what he did to the polls in 2011 was surely about as interesting as it gets.
Perhaps you would like to put the case that Clegg is the more towering figure.
The internet's almost brilliant.. Just found this in a google search but can't open the page:
Tabloids salivate at prospect of “Red Ed” in charge | Westminster blog blogs.ft.com › Comment › Blogs 22 Sep 2010 - Further UPDATE (3pm): Friends of Ed Miliband point out that he doesn't back his brother's mansion tax nor his tax on private schooling. Tags: David Miliband ...
The internet's almost brilliant.. Just found this in a google search but can't open the page:
Tabloids salivate at prospect of “Red Ed” in charge | Westminster blog blogs.ft.com › Comment › Blogs 22 Sep 2010 - Further UPDATE (3pm): Friends of Ed Miliband point out that he doesn't back his brother's mansion tax nor his tax on private schooling. Tags: David Miliband ...
Mr Crosby, (good article, by the way) that sounds right. Thorpe was also in possession of a number of telegrams (remember them) from Liberal parties up and down the country (one from me, as an Agent and my candidate) ...... there had been frantic phone calls all over the place ..... pointing out that whoever had won the election, Heath had lost it!
I think there's also a report somewhere that Thorpe was offered the (don't laugh, folks) the post of Home Secretary.
IMHO that was Clegg's big mistake in 2010; Deputy PM is up there with VPOTUS .... sounds good but generally speaking that's been a dead end ..... whereas if Clegg had insisted on one of the Great Offices he'd have had a "real" job.
If we have to have a Coalition after May 7th no doubt lessons will have been learned.
A few posters, only yesterday, were chiding me for the 'wishful thinking' of my Tory vote forecasts. I hope they are feeling suitably chaste today.
Yes, Nick Palmer, I'm thinking of you.
What were you forecasting CR?
My forecast was this, only yesterday afternoon:
"..I think the Tories will pull at least 5 points clear of Labour by election day, and I expect slightly more. If you Baxter: Con - 35% , Lab - 29.5%, Lib Dem - 14% and UKIP - 12% then you get Con on 312 seats, 14 short of a majority."
I stand by that forecast, although I think the seat totals for Con a little too high. I think something more like 295-305 seats.
This morning we had JackW with a very similar ARSE prediction. We now have an opinion poll showing Con very close to my predicted poll share, and in the lead.
Yet I have to put up with accusations I'm indulging in 'wishful thinking', and a PB Tory, by some posters, every time I post something that forecasts a Tory win. This is despite the fact I wasn't even planning to vote Conservative until Ed Miliband's speech, am fiercely critical of Cameron, and think the party will fall to pieces within a couple of years of winning GE2015.
Comments
Of course. The politics of envy. We all support a tax of someone else has to pay. I'd happily support a tax on vegan and halal food.
Wonder how many would support this tax if they had to pay it.
They seem to be saying that people in houses worth between £2 - 3 mio will only pay £250 per month more and that people in houses worth even more will pay squillions. But the sums raised are either footling amounts which will achieve the square root of bugger all in relation to the NHS or the amounts paid will have to be very very much greater or the threshold will have to come down significantly at which point we're not talking about taxing rich luvvies but about taxing the squeezed middle of which Labour used to be so fond.
It doesn't really add up.
If they're going to tax property why not use the revenues to build houses. I'm fed up with the NHS being seen as the only legitimate expense of government as if it's some sort of sacred cow. It is one of many competing priorities and it's about time all parties understood that.
At the moment they seem to be in the position of the old Punch (remember that?) cartoon, where a squad of trainees is marching towards a cliff. The drill sergeant looks on, struck dumb!
The caption reads "Say SOMETHING, if it's only Goodbye!"
And Clegg is, in this context, the drill sergeant.
I'm one of those who thought in 2010 that "there was no alternative" but there must some sort of opportunity somewhere now. Surely to God!
It'll be like being slapped by soggy quinoa leaves.
But the point, as far as I see it, is about the policy itself. People on the right are continually insisting that there's no public appetite for some "soak the rich" politics. But the reaction to Klassgate, with even top-rated Daily Mail comments being along the lines of "this greedy rich brat can cry me a river", shows that's clearly not true.
I think you'll find that refers to Miliband.
Nuff said.
1. In 1916 they went into a coalition with the Tories due to the war, the leadership refused to get out of it after the war and the party split and hemorrhaged to Labour.
2. In 1924 they had recovered a lot and they could have formed a government but they choose to support a Labour government, as a result the Liberal vote splintered to both the Tories and Labour.
3. In 1931 the leadership again sided with the Tories in coalition and their vote evaporated.
In 1918 they were beaten by Labour, they never beat Labour again.
In 1924 they lost the ability to be called a governing party, they never recovered.
In 1931 they lost the ability to be called a major party, they needed 43 years to recover to that level.
History was a perfect guide to what happens when a liberal party goes into a coalition government, in 2010 the LD had a similar choice and they shot themselves like the last 3 times.
Clearly they* don't like being in government, and voters are generously doing their best to try to ensure that the LibDems are spared from such suffering in the next parliament.
* With some honourable exceptions, such as Danny A and Steve Webb.
Electoralcalculus doesn't use UNS.
http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/strongmodel.html
UNS never gives the LD 0 seats even if they get 0 votes which is impactical, with STM they get 0 seats if they get 4% or less.
Anyhow, today's Mansion is tomorrow's Semi.
We all know where any new property tax will be applied as the thresholds creep ever lower.
History was a perfect guide to what happens when a liberal party goes into a coalition government, in 2010 the LD had a similar choice and they shot themselves like the last 3 times.
And my reply is:
Oh come on. Look back to 2010. What was the alternative? Never mind for the LD's, for the country.
Speedy , having declared the LibDems 'finished for good' you're not prepared to back that up with a wager? I'm the first to disapprove of 'betcha' type responses, but do you want to retract your assertion? If not, fancy backing it up with a bet? What would 'finished' be in your book? Less than 5 MPs?
By the way, let's not forget that the huge constituency beneficiaries of a LibDem slump would be the Tories.
It will be interesting to see if we are now set for a series of polls showing Tory leads. OGH makes the point that "Labour is clearly suffering from the seepage of support in Scotland". I haven't yet seen the indicated share of the vote received by the Greens in this Opinium poll, but I wonder whether Labour is also suffering as a result of the strengthening level of support in that direction which has been evident elsewhere. Given their far left positioning, it seems unlikely that such support could come other than from Labour.
Not to mention that you're mis-representing the details of 1 (the party split during the war, not after).
Also missing out a key point of 2 (the key point being the organisational split, notably with Lloyd George controlling and refusing to allow access to large amounts of funding leading to very limited candidate numbers and campaigning capacity, the most important reason behind Liberal fall in that election).
3 is an arbitrary definition. You could equally have said it about 1924 or 1929 depending on your definition of major party. And also overlooks the party split that was again the vital factor.
Poor effort and understanding.
It would have saved both the LD and the Tories from the compromises of coalition that resulted in the collapse of the LD and the rise of UKIP.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/market?marketId=1.115925336
2015 would be fine for me. Presumably Speedy reckons that should be their nadir, so what would that look like to represent 'finished'? 5 MPs? Or more?
Con majority nailed on.
But with the LD at 5% who can dispute that Clegg's political career won't be finished for good if they score at that level?
Reckless knows the terrain and if it were close I'm sure we'd be seeing bigger than 1.02 a UKIP win. That price in itself suggests to me that UKIP must be at least 10% clear (although nowhere near the 50% of MedwayExpress voodoo poll fame!)
General Election not fought on national aggregate votes shares but in 650 separate seats under first past the post.
Whether that would have happened of course, we'll never know.
On 1. there is no dispute that the coalition gave space for Labour to rise.
On 2, who says that the LD won't do the same in 2015? They have a similar strategy of putting everything on 50 seats.
On.3 my definition for major party is more than 10% of the vote and 10 seats, which is pretty straightforward.
And my conclusion stands not only in Britain but throughout the world, coalition governments between major parties is damaging to both and perhaps terminal to the smaller partner.
Whatever the LDs offered the working classes, Labour could outbid them.
http://order-order.com/2014/11/18/salmonds-stone-of-destiny/
POASWAS.
In 1974 things were much much serious economically and socially, there were talks of revolution or military coup in a midst of a real crisis on all fronts and a 3 day week, and still there was no coalition government.
I imagine you're the kind of Neanderthal who'd think nothing of giving her some physical encouragement to get back into her place.
Doing a Connery, as it's known.
think the extra money for the NHS meme isn't realy to "save the NHS" its to save the workers there, who mostly vote Labour from wholesale restructuring along the lines of the nationalised industries in the 1980s, when inefficient practices were stripped out wholesale. Unfortunately the Tories then privatised them and introduced another set of inefficiencies as a result.
http://www.bbc.com/weather/2639268?day=2
Has an informative 8 minute video from Rochester, South Thanet and Sittingbourne&Sheppey .
Yes, Nick Palmer, I'm thinking of you.
Perhaps it will suit no one, though turnout won't be depressed by bad weather.
England fans chanting: 'You're just a small town in England'.
Scotland fans: 'Jimmy Savile, he's one of your own'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/7996623/Labour-contest-turns-ugly-as-Ed-Miliband-is-dubbed-Forrest-Gump.html
Salmond now clearly moving towards being 'kingmaker' in a UK minority government, he has to win his seat first
1. There's plenty of dispute about whether it was coalition per se or the party split was more important (or both were below inexorable winds of change).
2. Erm, anyone who's even vaguely paying attention. The Liberals only managed to stand candidates in about half the seats in 1924 (linking back to the earlier party split that was continuing, Lloyd George sitting on the cash etc). And if you really delve deep (Chris Cook has done excellent work on this) you find the incredible scale of the disorganisation and disarray of the party at that time.
3. What a conveniently arbitrary definition, which is also nonsense. It makes the Liberals a major party in 1974 and on the cusp of being so in several elections before that. They were nothing like major at those times.
Your conclusion is not supported by your argument, given how narrowly it is formed, how poorly the points are made, and how clearly it has been written with the answer already in mind rather than observing and analysing the evidence and letting that guide you.
If you want to make an argument about the fate junior coalition partners around the world (featuring Germany etc I presume) then feel free. Off the top of my head there's convincing evidence out there.
But your argument doesn't stand up.
i) the arrival of the first hung parliament in 45 years took everyone by surprise. Thorpe in particular had no mandate from his own party to begin coalition negotiations, although he led Heath a fine dance over the weekend.
ii) the Liberals alone did not have enough seats to provide anyone with a parliamentary majority in any case.
My analysis of the sorry business can be found here:-
http://hungparliament2010.blogspot.co.uk/2009/12/what-can-we-learn-from-last-time.html
England fans chanting: 'You're just a small town in England'. Scotland fans: 'Jimmy Savile, he's one of your own'
There's libraries of argument about this kind of thing (I think comparisons with Aus and NZ at similar times feature heavily). Would the Liberals just have shifted in a more Radical direction, could 3 party politics have lasted (we were incredibly close to getting rid of FPTP on more than one occasion).
I'm rather wary of the idea of inexorable history.
It's when the guy goes all hypocritical t0sser when anyone else does the same kind of thing. Why genuine Labour types actual support the posh boy is beyond me.
Guess what? Yes, it is.
And in case you haven't heard there was a Liberal revival culminated in 1974, after which it was a 2.5 party system.
Perhaps you would like to put the case that Clegg is the more towering figure.
Tabloids salivate at prospect of “Red Ed” in charge | Westminster blog
blogs.ft.com › Comment › Blogs
22 Sep 2010 - Further UPDATE (3pm): Friends of Ed Miliband point out that he doesn't back his brother's mansion tax nor his tax on private schooling. Tags: David Miliband ...
http://blogs.ft.com/westminster/2010/09/tabloids-salivate-at-prospect-of-red-ed-in-charge/
And google will bring up the article for free.
Applies to all FT articles.
"Interestingly, while Ed wants more taxation, he refuses to back David’s mansion tax"
http://leftfootforward.org/2010/09/whats-the-difference-mili-brothers/
I take the "almost" back internet; you are brilliant!
I think there's also a report somewhere that Thorpe was offered the (don't laugh, folks) the post of Home Secretary.
IMHO that was Clegg's big mistake in 2010; Deputy PM is up there with VPOTUS .... sounds good but generally speaking that's been a dead end ..... whereas if Clegg had insisted on one of the Great Offices he'd have had a "real" job.
If we have to have a Coalition after May 7th no doubt lessons will have been learned.
"..I think the Tories will pull at least 5 points clear of Labour by election day, and I expect slightly more. If you Baxter: Con - 35% , Lab - 29.5%, Lib Dem - 14% and UKIP - 12% then you get Con on 312 seats, 14 short of a majority."
I stand by that forecast, although I think the seat totals for Con a little too high. I think something more like 295-305 seats.
This morning we had JackW with a very similar ARSE prediction. We now have an opinion poll showing Con very close to my predicted poll share, and in the lead.
Yet I have to put up with accusations I'm indulging in 'wishful thinking', and a PB Tory, by some posters, every time I post something that forecasts a Tory win. This is despite the fact I wasn't even planning to vote Conservative until Ed Miliband's speech, am fiercely critical of Cameron, and think the party will fall to pieces within a couple of years of winning GE2015.