politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » General Election year polling opens with LAB having small l

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » General Election year polling opens with LAB having small leads and a big divide over the Greens

Not much real difference with the the main parties but YouGov is showing a much bigger Green share,8%, compared with the Populus 4%. It is hard to work out way but YouGov’s Green shares were amongst the highest of the firms at the end of last year.

Read the full story here

audreyanne

I thought Opinium already had claim on the first poll of 2015?
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/9124

CON 32%(+3), LAB 33%(-3), LDEM 8%(+2), UKIP 17%(+1), GRN 4%(-1).

Fieldwork Dec 30th to Jan 02nd.

Anyway, all much of a muchness except, as you say Mike, re the Greens and UKIP too. I'm looking to fieldwork first week of February for the holiday season/ January shake out.

AlbionTilIDie

End of the year polls suggested a Labour / Lib Dem / SDLP coalition would be required to get Ed over the line. This was predicated on Labour picking up over 20 seats in London and the South East from the Tories to be largest party.

Will be interesting to see if the South East cash for Scottish subsidies policy has a bigger impact in Scotland or the South East; Ed has clearly gambled on the incremental seat holds in Scotland being greater than the incremental seat losses in the South.

Charles

In 2010 the Tories ran a terrible campaign and Labour a great one. That explains the shift in the leads rather than anything else, do it's pretty daft to suggest it as a rule of Some kind

Indigo

AlbionTilIDie said:

Will be interesting to see if the South East cash for Scottish subsidies policy has a bigger impact in Scotland or the South East; Ed has clearly gambled on the incremental seat holds in Scotland being greater than the incremental seat losses in the South.

Unfortunately it won't have any real impact unless they win the election. At the moment the mansion tax look like it will only affect the people in the 55,000 plushest houses, almost exclusively in London, but at that level, its only going to raise £300k, and would only buy Scotland a couple of hundred nurses if he is lucky. Most of the people in those 55k houses dont vote Labour anyway.

Once people find out that the level was actually a lie, and its going to be a much higher rate, that start much lower down the market in value, then people are going to get pissed off, and it will have an effect, but by then its too late. In order to raise the 1.2bn he wants to raise he would have to start around £1m, or as it is otherwise known, a three bedroom semi in a mediocre area of London like Barnet, then a lot of people will be annoyed, and a lot more of them are likely to be Labour voters.

Scott_P

More of the terrain Labour wanted to fight on yesterday...

@neilhimself: This is not something to brag about. RT @labourpress: p.44 of Tory dossier says Labour will cancel cuts to the arts budget. We won't.

AlbionTilIDie

Indigo said:

AlbionTilIDie said:

Will be interesting to see if the South East cash for Scottish subsidies policy has a bigger impact in Scotland or the South East; Ed has clearly gambled on the incremental seat holds in Scotland being greater than the incremental seat losses in the South.

Unfortunately it won't have any real impact unless they win the election. At the moment the mansion tax look like it will only affect the people in the 55,000 plushest houses, almost exclusively in London, but at that level, its only going to raise £300k, and would only buy Scotland a couple of hundred nurses if he is lucky. Most of the people in those 55k houses dont vote Labour anyway.

Once people find out that the level was actually a lie, and its going to be a much higher rate, that start much lower down the market in value, then people are going to get pissed off, and it will have an effect, but by then its too late. In order to raise the 1.2bn he wants to raise he would have to start around £1m, or as it is otherwise known, a three bedroom semi in a mediocre area of London like Barnet, then a lot of people will be annoyed, and a lot more of them are likely to be Labour voters.

Do people who live in £1 Million houses in Barnet really vote Labour anyway?

AlbionTilIDie

Good YouGov poll for Labour - an uptick in fortunes for them in the Midlands and a general uptick for the Lib Dems indicates the two parties could get over the line without help from the SDLP.

audreyanne

Indigo said:

AlbionTilIDie said:

Will be interesting to see if the South East cash for Scottish subsidies policy has a bigger impact in Scotland or the South East; Ed has clearly gambled on the incremental seat holds in Scotland being greater than the incremental seat losses in the South.

Unfortunately it won't have any real impact unless they win the election. At the moment the mansion tax look like it will only affect the people in the 55,000 plushest houses, almost exclusively in London,

I think this misses the point. The Mansion Tax hangs like the Sword of Damocles over aspiration, and actually over one of the most aspirational features of British society: home ownership. It is hitting not just the top end of the market, but houses at c.£500,000 and above, and there are a heck of a lot of those in London.

You're right of course that it may largely only affect London, where Labour can ill-afford to lose any seats given the situation in Scotland. The fact that it would be used to fund Scottish nurses is not exactly going to help Labour's London campaign. (On which subject I am hoping for some London polls.)

As I've also said before, the people this tax is threatening are also influential. It's the stupidest tax devised since Thatcher's poll tax.

Labour's tax bombshells: plural because there are several.

audreyanne

Charles said:

In 2010 the Tories ran a terrible campaign and Labour a great one. That explains the shift in the leads rather than anything else, do it's pretty daft to suggest it as a rule of Some kind

Indeed and we need to remember the trend in Labour's share:

1997 43.2%
2001 40.7%
2005 35.2%
2010 29.0%

The 2010 swing from Labour to Conservatives was 5.%.

Generally I would say it has taken a long time for the Conservatives to regain trust following the 1992-97 shambles. The trend is the friend:

1997 30.7%
2001 31.7%
2005 32.4%
2010 36.1%

We also need to remember that from 1997-2010 the Conservatives were the opposition party. This time they are the Government seeking re-election, so any comparisons with 2010 ought to factor that in.

Indigo

AlbionTilIDie said:

Will be interesting to see if the South East cash for Scottish subsidies policy has a bigger impact in Scotland or the South East; Ed has clearly gambled on the incremental seat holds in Scotland being greater than the incremental seat losses in the South.

I think their bigger worry will be the patriotic Blue Labour vote in the Midlands, who are looking for any further excuse to go and vote for Mr Farage.

LogicalSong

19%, 22%, 25%, 26% - Pretty evenly matched preferences between the 4 options Coalitions (Lab/LD, Con/LD) and Minority (Lab, Con).
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/01/05/many-voters-prefer-no-absolute-majority-2015/

Indigo

AlbionTilIDie said:

Indigo said:

AlbionTilIDie said:

Will be interesting to see if the South East cash for Scottish subsidies policy has a bigger impact in Scotland or the South East; Ed has clearly gambled on the incremental seat holds in Scotland being greater than the incremental seat losses in the South.

Unfortunately it won't have any real impact unless they win the election. At the moment the mansion tax look like it will only affect the people in the 55,000 plushest houses, almost exclusively in London, but at that level, its only going to raise £300k, and would only buy Scotland a couple of hundred nurses if he is lucky. Most of the people in those 55k houses dont vote Labour anyway.

Once people find out that the level was actually a lie, and its going to be a much higher rate, that start much lower down the market in value, then people are going to get pissed off, and it will have an effect, but by then its too late. In order to raise the 1.2bn he wants to raise he would have to start around £1m, or as it is otherwise known, a three bedroom semi in a mediocre area of London like Barnet, then a lot of people will be annoyed, and a lot more of them are likely to be Labour voters.

Do people who live in £1 Million houses in Barnet really vote Labour anyway?

I dont know, but £1m isn't much of a house in Barnet, and its even less of a house in Fulham. In both places house prices have tripled in the last 10 years, so I can well believe there are a fair few Labour voters that have held on to their house for a while. Hell, there are a load of houses over £1m in Haringey where they vote for a donkey with a red rosette.

AlbionTilIDie

Indigo said:

AlbionTilIDie said:

Indigo said:

AlbionTilIDie said:

Will be interesting to see if the South East cash for Scottish subsidies policy has a bigger impact in Scotland or the South East; Ed has clearly gambled on the incremental seat holds in Scotland being greater than the incremental seat losses in the South.

Unfortunately it won't have any real impact unless they win the election. At the moment the mansion tax look like it will only affect the people in the 55,000 plushest houses, almost exclusively in London, but at that level, its only going to raise £300k, and would only buy Scotland a couple of hundred nurses if he is lucky. Most of the people in those 55k houses dont vote Labour anyway.

Once people find out that the level was actually a lie, and its going to be a much higher rate, that start much lower down the market in value, then people are going to get pissed off, and it will have an effect, but by then its too late. In order to raise the 1.2bn he wants to raise he would have to start around £1m, or as it is otherwise known, a three bedroom semi in a mediocre area of London like Barnet, then a lot of people will be annoyed, and a lot more of them are likely to be Labour voters.

Do people who live in £1 Million houses in Barnet really vote Labour anyway?

I dont know, but £1m isn't much of a house in Barnet, and its even less of a house in Fulham. In both places house prices have tripled in the last 10 years, so I can well believe there are a fair few Labour voters that have held on to their house for a while. Hell, there are a load of houses over £1m in Haringey where they vote for a donkey with a red rosette.

I think the unintended consequence of this tax is that many people who live in £1 Million houses in London actually rent them - particularly large houses which are rented by several people. It will therefore be the landlord who receives the tax bill - and undoubtedly pass this onto the tenants, further increasing London rents.

Indigo

audreyanne said:

Charles said:

In 2010 the Tories ran a terrible campaign and Labour a great one. That explains the shift in the leads rather than anything else, do it's pretty daft to suggest it as a rule of Some kind

Indeed and we need to remember the trend in Labour's share:

1997 43.2%
2001 40.7%
2005 35.2%
2010 29.0%

The 2010 swing from Labour to Conservatives was 5.%.

Generally I would say it has taken a long time for the Conservatives to regain trust following the 1992-97 shambles. The trend is the friend:

1997 30.7%
2001 31.7%
2005 32.4%
2010 36.1%

We also need to remember that from 1997-2010 the Conservatives were the opposition party. This time they are the Government seeking re-election, so any comparisons with 2010 ought to factor that in.

I thought we were unconvinced how much difference a campaign made, and there was evidence to show not much changed though a campaign.

1997 have the combination of a shagged out Conservative government and bright shiney new Mr Blair promising to follow the Tories spending promises. I think those drops in Labour support are when the Conservatives that lent him their vote realised he was lying about financial goodsense, and when the Liberals realised he was telling lies about the various wars, and when the Left wing of Labour started to peel off for a number of reasons. Those three together probably had much more effect than a relatively modest conservative recovery, which amounts to only about 6% from their nadir.

Indigo

AlbionTilIDie said:

I think the unintended consequence of this tax is that many people who live in £1 Million houses in London actually rent them - particularly large houses which are rented by several people. It will therefore be the landlord who receives the tax bill - and undoubtedly pass this onto the tenants, further increasing London rents.

A lot of those sort of properties are excluded from the proposals (at the moment) which is why it is going to raise such a footling amount of tax.

http://content.knightfrank.com/research/500/documents/en/taxing-high-value-homes-mansion-tax-1530.pdf

However we did get an insight into Labour thinking from Chris Leslie MP, who confirmed in the House of Commons that the list of exceptions to the recently introduced Annual Tax on Enveloped Dwellings (ATED) “…may well serve as a guide as to how a mansion tax could work in future”.

The exemptions for the ATED are fairly wide ranging and include those properties owned and used by charities or social housing providers, farmhouses and some properties used by businesses to house employees. More significantly the list of exemptions includes properties rented to third parties

In any case the whole thing is bullshit, £1.2bn won't pay the interest on our national debt for two weeks, assuming it costs nothing to collect, and they dont end up in endless expensive lawsuits over it with rich people with legal insurance.

audreyanne

Indigo said:

audreyanne said:

Charles said:

In 2010 the Tories ran a terrible campaign and Labour a great one. That explains the shift in the leads rather than anything else, do it's pretty daft to suggest it as a rule of Some kind

Indeed and we need to remember the trend in Labour's share:

1997 43.2%
2001 40.7%
2005 35.2%
2010 29.0%

The 2010 swing from Labour to Conservatives was 5.%.

Generally I would say it has taken a long time for the Conservatives to regain trust following the 1992-97 shambles. The trend is the friend:

1997 30.7%
2001 31.7%
2005 32.4%
2010 36.1%

We also need to remember that from 1997-2010 the Conservatives were the opposition party. This time they are the Government seeking re-election, so any comparisons with 2010 ought to factor that in.

I thought we were unconvinced how much difference a campaign made, and there was evidence to show not much changed though a campaign.

We were?

This is a campaign where I think there will be some significant shifts, particularly as I expect UKIP support to ebb and the Conservatives to rise as the state their case on the economy. It has taken a generation to rebuild Conservative trust on the economy following Black Wednesday. That's why I think they will win this May.

Indigo

audreyanne said:

Indigo said:

audreyanne said:

Charles said:

In 2010 the Tories ran a terrible campaign and Labour a great one. That explains the shift in the leads rather than anything else, do it's pretty daft to suggest it as a rule of Some kind

Indeed and we need to remember the trend in Labour's share:

1997 43.2%
2001 40.7%
2005 35.2%
2010 29.0%

The 2010 swing from Labour to Conservatives was 5.%.

Generally I would say it has taken a long time for the Conservatives to regain trust following the 1992-97 shambles. The trend is the friend:

1997 30.7%
2001 31.7%
2005 32.4%
2010 36.1%

We also need to remember that from 1997-2010 the Conservatives were the opposition party. This time they are the Government seeking re-election, so any comparisons with 2010 ought to factor that in.

I thought we were unconvinced how much difference a campaign made, and there was evidence to show not much changed though a campaign.

This is a campaign where I think there will be some significant shifts, particularly as I expect UKIP support to ebb and the Conservatives to rise as the state their case on the economy. It has taken a generation to rebuild Conservative trust on the economy following Black Wednesday. That's why I think they will win this May.

I don't UKIP will ebb much in absolute numbers, most of their voters are committed anti-immigration anti-EU people. I think they might well ebb as a percentage of the vote as more DKs make their mind up as a result of the factors you cite. I think on the actual day it will fall back because so many of people polling for UKIP used to be DNV and probably won't get off the sofa, but Heywood and Middleton gives me some pause there. EdM being on the news every day could well be a factor, especially since the BBC are going to give him endless primetime billing, little knowing the damage they are doing ;-)

Indigo

audreyanne said:

We were?

At least that was the view of Dr Palmer here, unless I misrepresent him

http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/discussion/comment/488463/#Comment_488463

audreyanne

Yep inclined to agree with the last part Indigo.

By the way, re campaigns having little effect I do think it all depends on the circumstances, and this time is arguably quite different from anything for 30 or 40 years, for various reasons which includes UKIP.

I also think there's a question about when the campaign has started. The fixed term parliament has meant large swathes of people still have no idea about the election. Incredibly someone intelligent said to me yesterday 'oh is the General Election this year?' That's what the fixed 5 yr term has done. It's another reason why I am not paying much attention to the polls before at least February. Until the country comes out of its slumber there is little meaning to them.

MarqueeMark

You can picture it now, the PPB that smashed Labour in 2015. Shots of very ordinary looking streets in suburban marginals. With the voice over. "In Labour land, these houses are mansions... Labour will impose a mansion tax if it gets back into power. It SAYS it will be on houses valued at over 2 million pounds. But its numbers just don't add up. To do all the things Labour say it will do with the money raised, it will have to charge this new tax on houses worth much less. It will have to charge it on houses like these.... houses like yours. Many thousands of pounds a year...."

And Labour will scream " That's a lie!!!!!!!!" But the damage will have been done. And they will onlyhave themselves to blame. Because their numbers don't add up. They are treating the voters for fools, whilst trying to play the politics of envy card. Well, that card gets top trumped by the politics of fear. Especially when it comes to an Englishman's castle.....

foxinsoxuk

audreyanne said:

Charles said:

In 2010 the Tories ran a terrible campaign and Labour a great one. That explains the shift in the leads rather than anything else, do it's pretty daft to suggest it as a rule of Some kind

Indeed and we need to remember the trend in Labour's share:

1997 43.2%
2001 40.7%
2005 35.2%
2010 29.0%

The 2010 swing from Labour to Conservatives was 5.%.

Generally I would say it has taken a long time for the Conservatives to regain trust following the 1992-97 shambles. The trend is the friend:

1997 30.7%
2001 31.7%
2005 32.4%
2010 36.1%

We also need to remember that from 1997-2010 the Conservatives were the opposition party. This time they are the Government seeking re-election, so any comparisons with 2010 ought to factor that in.

Interesting figures. I had not appreciated that the decline in Labour votes was quite so steady, I knew the Tory rise was initially barely detectable.

Labour ran a good campaign in 2010 (Mandelson is a snake, but a very effective one!) From what I have seen so far are running an inept and poorly co-ordinated one. SLAB seem to have gone rogue...

4 months to go and everything to play for. Interesting to see what the LibDems, UKIP and Greens come out with.

I hear on R4 now six acute NHS Trusts have now gone to Major incident. This tends to have domino effects on neighbours. Best get off t' mill myself shortly.

foxinsoxuk

audreyanne said:

Yep inclined to agree with the last part Indigo.

By the way, re campaigns having little effect I do think it all depends on the circumstances, and this time is arguably quite different from anything for 30 or 40 years, for various reasons which includes UKIP.

I also think there's a question about when the campaign has started. The fixed term parliament has meant large swathes of people still have no idea about the election. Incredibly someone intelligent said to me yesterday 'oh is the General Election this year?' That's what the fixed 5 yr term has done. It's another reason why I am not paying much attention to the polls before at least February. Until the country comes out of its slumber there is little meaning to them.

I don't often comment on polls, and I think that because of all the new variables this time round there will be a much higher noise to signal ratio than usual. A child does not grow by being measured.

TOPPING

So where are we?

We had a right rollicking few years 1997 - 2008 where 130% self-certifying mortgages fell out of our cornflakes box, we borrowed on equity we had and didn't have, public and private balance sheets expanded beyond belief, and we had a spring in our step. We were cool*.

And then it crashed.

And it hurt. And it still hurts. And although wages are beginning to pick up we are worried because it's the whole once bitten twice shy thing and we are nervous and at the moment in our minds the Cons are associated with the pain and Lab are associated with the good times.

And we want the good times back but the Cons, being nasty, don't want to give them back to us. Lab does. They are the good guys promising good times.

Hence the current polls and Lab's buoyancy.

It was always my belief that on the long, lonely walk to the polling stations this May, reason would prevail. But now I'm not so sure.

*not me.

DavidL

Tory tactics for the campaign were laid out yesterday and they are not exactly subtle.

An ill-disciplined, poorly coordinated and ultimately lazy opposition have spent the last 4 years opposing every cut in spending without doing any of the hard work necessary to find an alternative. Even more remarkably they have failed to do the same work for the next financial year when they expect to be in government.

So, are they going to reverse these nasty, ideologically driven and savage cuts or are they in fact going to accept that they are all necessary and will happen whoever wins the election? Of course they are not all necessary in absolute terms but if they are to be cancelled something else needs to be cut or some additional taxes need to be levied. This would have required some thought and something called a plan.

The Tories hope that the confusion, disillusionment and uncertainty connected with this lack of a plan and clear cut objectives will put Labour on the back foot. It certainly gives them a chance they really should not have had but I frankly wonder how effective this will be. An innumerate media addressing an indifferent public with deep seated irrational beliefs about the core values of the main parties risk the message being diffused and lost. At the moment it looks to me like Ed is going to end up blundering into Downing Street and following his inspiration Hollande into new depths of unpopularity.

Alistair

Indigo said:

audreyanne said:

Charles said:

In 2010 the Tories ran a terrible campaign and Labour a great one. That explains the shift in the leads rather than anything else, do it's pretty daft to suggest it as a rule of Some kind

Indeed and we need to remember the trend in Labour's share:

1997 43.2%
2001 40.7%
2005 35.2%
2010 29.0%

The 2010 swing from Labour to Conservatives was 5.%.

Generally I would say it has taken a long time for the Conservatives to regain trust following the 1992-97 shambles I thought. The trend is the friend:

1997 30.7%
2001 31.7%
2005 32.4%
2010 36.1%

We also need to remember that from 1997-2010 the Conservatives were the opposition party. This time they are the Government seeking re-election, so any comparisons with 2010 ought to factor that in.

I thought we were unconvinced how much difference a campaign made, and there was evidence to show not much changed though a campaign.

1997 have the combination of a shagged out Conservative government and bright shiney new Mr Blair promising to follow the Tories spending promises. I think those drops in Labour support are when the Conservatives that lent him their vote realised he was lying about financial goodsense, and when the Liberals realised he was telling lies about the various wars, and when the Left wing of Labour started to peel off for a number of reasons. Those three together probably had much more effect than a relatively modest conservative recovery, which amounts to only about 6% from their nadir.

Con voters didn't switch to Labour in 1997, they stayed home out of shame at the sleazy Major government and didn't leave the house again until 2010.

The popular vote totals were

Lab
1992 10.5m
1997 13.5m
2001 10.7m
2005 9.5m
2010 8.6m

Con
1992 14.0m
1997 9.6m
2001 8.3m
2005 8.7m
2010 10.7m

Indigo

TOPPING said:

Hence the current polls and Lab's buoyancy.

It was always my belief that on the long, lonely walk to the polling stations this May, reason would prevail. But now I'm not so sure.

*not me.

Just like we had the problem of banks being protected from moral hazard, and so pissing money against the wall knowing that someone was going to bail them out if it all went wrong. We pretty much have the same thing with the voting public, they are so well insulated (with some exceptions) from these sort of disasters, its doesnt stay in their mind very long.

In 2008 due to idiotic policies, lack of oversight, lack of fixing the roof etc., economy melted, people told us the world was doing to end, and vast amounts of money were flushed away making sure that it didn't.

The average voter lost no money because of FSCS. Anyone who lost his job had a nasty shock, but was mostly protected by extensive benefits. Everyone's health carries on being cared for, everyone kids stayed at school. The visceral impact was quite muted, and hence after relatively few years people are starting to forget about it and consider voting Labour, even with half the same people that caused the problem are still going to be opening red boxes.

AndyJS

Good morning. Oil to fall below $50 today?

audreyanne

DavidL said:

Tory tactics for the campaign were laid out yesterday and they are not exactly subtle.

Very much agree and with both foxinsoxuk (great name by the way) and MarqueeMark below. MM you are so right about that: the damage will have been done. Touching an 'Englishman's castle'? Wow, talk about where angels fear to tread.

The most outrageous and unsubtle campaign I think I can ever recall was "Labour's Tax Bombshell" in 1992. And it worked. It was possibly barely half-true but, wow, did it do the job. I actually think this time around Labour are even more vulnerable than 1992 on the question of tax and spend. So I expect the gloves to come off and things to get very dirty.

audreyanne

For anyone who doesn't remember the 1992 Labour Tax Bombshell, here's a eulogy about it … from the LibDems!
http://www.libdemvoice.org/five-of-the-best-political-adverts-labours-tax-bombshell-22298.html

It went hand in glove, literally, with this cracker:
http://www.protestandsurvive.com/conservative-political-poster-labours-double-whammy-p-345.html

Best political advertising this country has ever seen? Must be pretty close. Outrageous really, but brilliant. Mind you, so was the Saatchi 'Labour isn't working' for 1979.

SouthamObserver

My hunch is that some on here may be ever so slightly overestimating the potential mansion tax downside for Labour.

As for Murphy and SLAB, surely they are just illustrating the potential redistributive benefits that Scotland derives from the Union and that we all know about anyway. The SNP can't deliver on that front, the Tories won't. Labour says the MT will deliver extra nurses across the UK. Some of these will be in Scotland. That doesn't look like a huge own goal to me. But maybe it is. We'll see.

OldKingCole

MarqueeMark said:

You can picture it now, the PPB that smashed Labour in 2015. Shots of very ordinary looking streets in suburban marginals. With the voice over. "In Labour land, these houses are mansions... Labour will impose a mansion tax if it gets back into power. It SAYS it will be on houses valued at over 2 million pounds. But its numbers just don't add up. To do all the things Labour say it will do with the money raised, it will have to charge this new tax on houses worth much less. It will have to charge it on houses like these.... houses like yours. Many thousands of pounds a year...."

And Labour will scream " That's a lie!!!!!!!!" But the damage will have been done. And they will onlyhave themselves to blame. Because their numbers don't add up. They are treating the voters for fools, whilst trying to play the politics of envy card. Well, that card gets top trumped by the politics of fear. Especially when it comes to an Englishman's castle.....

I don’t know, MM. I’ve had a look on Rightmove and while I can find plenty of houses at very high prices (£25m+) in Central London I can find few over £2-3m or so in the S part of E. Anglia. I think that people will look in estate agents windows and think .... that doesn’t apply to me.

Mind, I still think it would much simpler, and probably fairer, since there already methods of reducing the burden on people with limited means, to (a) increase the Council Tax bands and (b) decrease the allowances on second homes. I recall talking to a local in a N Wales village who told me that many of the houses were dark from about October to March.

The increased take on the Council Tax could be withheld from the grant made to the Councils.

audreyanne

AndyJS said:

Good morning. Oil to fall below $50 today?

Which will be the first supermarket to dare to go for it: 99p a litre?

Freggles

audreyanne said:

AndyJS said:

Good morning. Oil to fall below $50 today?

Which will be the first supermarket to dare to go for it: 99p a litre?

ASDA are usually the first to drop, they're going to 105p today

Indigo

OldKingCole said:

Mind, I still think it would much simpler, and probably fairer, since there already methods of reducing the burden on people with limited means, to (a) increase the Council Tax bands and (b) decrease the allowances on second homes. I recall talking to a local in a N Wales village who told me that many of the houses were dark from about October to March.

The increased take on the Council Tax could be withheld from the grant made to the Councils.

That makes financial sense, but its an invisible change. What Balls wants is some loud bit of envy politics which he can use to raise a few quid, and show he is bashing the rich, the council tax extension doesn't get him anything there.

SouthamObserver said:

My hunch is that some on here may be ever so slightly overestimating the potential mansion tax downside for Labour.

The main downside as I said below, will be felt after the election, which is it actually isn't going to raise very much money, the NHS costs about £120bn a year to run, so 1.2bn quid from this wheeze will run it for just over two days, only to make that he is going to have to make it much less user friendly, because the £300m the current proposal will raise will last the NHS until around dinner time on the first day.

Scott_P

@mjrharris: You're drunk. Go home. 》 RT @labourpress: p.44 of Tory dossier says Labour will cancel cuts to the arts budget. We won't.

When Labourpress are tweeting out cuts, I think we can say the dossier achieved its primary goal

DavidL

audreyanne said:

AndyJS said:

Good morning. Oil to fall below $50 today?

Which will be the first supermarket to dare to go for it: 99p a litre?

With my 20p a litre discount from Tescos I expect to be paying substantially less than £1 a litre when I fill up today.

I agree with you about the effectiveness of the "tax bombshell" in 1992. The wisdom of the time was that John Smith had made a major error in having a plan which did make it clear that higher taxes were in store to increase public spending. There is little doubt that folk memory of that experience is driving the lack of a plan at the moment. Will this work better for Labour or does it just give the tories more room to use their imaginations? Only time will tell.

But I didn't see anything yesterday that came close to the posters you linked to. 40 odd page documents are really not going to do it.

OldKingCole

Can’t see, Indigo, why increasing the Council Tax bands wouldn’t do what is perceived to be politically advantageous. It also has the advantage of staying the grumbles of those suburbanites who see people in very big houses rated at the same level as they are. (Not there now, but been there and that grumble is real!)

MarqueeMark

SouthamObserver said:

My hunch is that some on here may be ever so slightly overestimating the potential mansion tax downside for Labour.

The downside for Labour is that fear over the Mansion Tax is perhaps the area where kippers are most likely to return to the Tory fold.....

Carnyx

SouthamObserver said:

My hunch is that some on here may be ever so slightly overestimating the potential mansion tax downside for Labour.

As for Murphy and SLAB, surely they are just illustrating the potential redistributive benefits that Scotland derives from the Union and that we all know about anyway. The SNP can't deliver on that front, the Tories won't. Labour says the MT will deliver extra nurses across the UK. Some of these will be in Scotland. That doesn't look like a huge own goal to me. But maybe it is. We'll see.

We'd rather keep our own money in the first place! But more immediately the SLAB proposal is completely wrong-headed as SLAB cannot determine Scottish health spending decisions unless they are elected in a completely different election in 2016 - and those decisions are moreover devolved and irrelevant to this coming election. But it is routine for SLAB to complain about the SNP not doing a, b and c even when those are not devolved matters. They must have no worries that this confounds the public and destroys reasoned public debate.

CD13

Labour's policies may look lightweight but they're aimed at tapping into the fair cuts and nasty cuts theme. The Mansion Tax may be a silly gimmick but it also taps into this.

The energy freeze and the other meaningless tat may achieve their object. We mean well - the other lot don't. It's childish politics for children.

It may work.

Morris_Dancer

Good morning, everyone.

Just one poll, but down to fifth for the Lib Dems is not a great start. On the other hand, Miliband was rubbish and the quintet of Conservatives doesn't appear to have made huge headway, beyond dragging Miliband away from screaming "NHS" repeatedly and towards the economy [but that also helps Clegg].

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Carnyx, quite. The Scots will be well aware of that and think Scottish Labour are peddling piss and calling it whisky, and the English will see Scottish Labour wanting to tax England to pay for Scottish nurses. It makes one wonder just how high up the SNP mole in Scottish Labour is.

Is Jim Murphy one of yours?

BenM

Scott_P said:

@mjrharris: You're drunk. Go home. 》 RT @labourpress: p.44 of Tory dossier says Labour will cancel cuts to the arts budget. We won't.

When Labourpress are tweeting out cuts, I think we can say the dossier achieved its primary goal

If that goal was to make the Tories look shifty and untrustworthy again, it certainly did.

NickPalmer

Audrey, can you remind me of the terms of our bet? £10 on a 7-point Tory lead, IIRC, but I'm not sure.

Indigo said:

AlbionTilIDie said:

Do people who live in £1 Million houses in Barnet really vote Labour anyway?

I dont know, but £1m isn't much of a house in Barnet, and its even less of a house in Fulham. In both places house prices have tripled in the last 10 years, so I can well believe there are a fair few Labour voters that have held on to their house for a while. Hell, there are a load of houses over £1m in Haringey where they vote for a donkey with a red rosette.

Some of the wealthiest people I've met were way to the left of me. They will certainly be cheering on the mansion tax. The number of people who both live in £2m+ houses and vote Labour for non-idealistic reasons is IMO negligble.

YouGov have announced a second methodology change - they're trying to make their London and Scottish subsamples more representative:

"...a rationalisation of our sampling frame to produce a sample that better reflects the distribution of party support around Britain. Our overall demographic targets for Great Britain and the targets we use for our weighting remain unchanged, so these changes should not make any difference to our headline figures. However we are controlling our sampling in London and Scotland more carefully, so anyone who regularly studies our crossbreaks may notice a difference within them. Most importantly, we have started including controls on ethnicity in our London sampling, an important factor in driving voting intention."

For what it's worth, the Scottish subsample today shows a narrower gap than usual. But it's too soon to say anything significant.

BenM

With every day that passes, the potential for any swingback to the Tories diminishes.

The opening salvoes in the GE campaign haven't helped the blues either. Amateurish at best. A bit desperate too.

Carnyx

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Carnyx, quite. The Scots will be well aware of that and think Scottish Labour are peddling piss and calling it whisky, and the English will see Scottish Labour wanting to tax England to pay for Scottish nurses. It makes one wonder just how high up the SNP mole in Scottish Labour is.

Is Jim Murphy one of yours?

That had not occurred to me - but perhaps I don't want to get too paranoid/tinfoily.

Anyway, the SNP are the latest folk pointing out that the Labour sums don't add up, especially with the Barnett consequential added in:

http://www.snp.org/media-centre/news/2015/jan/labour-sums-simply-dont-make-sense

I think that [edit: Labour] statement is absolutely insane. And disgracefully divisive.

Unless they are trying to hug the SNP at the same time as committing party suicide. And even then it doesn't make sense. There is also a question whether Ms Dugdale has agreed this statement (below) with Mr M, never mind most of the rest of SLAB for whom being polite to the SNP is going to be as welcome as a tin of baked beans in Pythagoras's Academy. MInd, it could be a ploy to say 'you might as well vote SLAB as SNP'. Or is she already making a bid for the SLAB head honchoship?

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/scottish-politics/dugdale-id-be-prepared-to-work-with-the-snp-after-general-election.1420455082

MarqueeMark

Carnyx said:

SouthamObserver said:

My hunch is that some on here may be ever so slightly overestimating the potential mansion tax downside for Labour.

As for Murphy and SLAB, surely they are just illustrating the potential redistributive benefits that Scotland derives from the Union and that we all know about anyway. The SNP can't deliver on that front, the Tories won't. Labour says the MT will deliver extra nurses across the UK. Some of these will be in Scotland. That doesn't look like a huge own goal to me. But maybe it is. We'll see.

We'd rather keep our own money in the first place! But more immediately the SLAB proposal is completely wrong-headed as SLAB cannot determine Scottish health spending decisions unless they are elected in a completely different election in 2016 - and those decisions are moreover devolved and irrelevant to this coming election. But it is routine for SLAB to complain about the SNP not doing a, b and c even when those are not devolved matters. They must have no worries that this confounds the public and destroys reasoned public debate.

Assuming the SNP aren't scrimping on the provision of nurses, SLAB have now opened themselves up to a new line of attack - " wasteful Labour". Labour would rather spend money on unnecessary nurses rather than spending where it IS needed - on XYZ.

This all comes down to Labour thinking that those three letters NHS automatically win any argument. It is clearly all they have going into this election. And yet this is the party that admitted it would have to impose NHS cuts - cuts the Tories didn't make despite Labour importing a population needing the NHS....

rottenborough

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

Just one poll, but down to fifth for the Lib Dems is not a great start. On the other hand, Miliband was rubbish and the quintet of Conservatives doesn't appear to have made huge headway, beyond dragging Miliband away from screaming "NHS" repeatedly and towards the economy [but that also helps Clegg].

Morning all,

I suspect yesterday's performances have achieved precisely nothing. An image of WW1 generals comes to mind, desperately throwing everything they have at each other to gain a yard of ground. Meanwhile, the voters must have been reaching for the TV remote.

CarlottaVance

MarqueeMark said:

Carnyx said:

SouthamObserver said:

My hunch is that some on here may be ever so slightly overestimating the potential mansion tax downside for Labour.

As for Murphy and SLAB, surely they are just illustrating the potential redistributive benefits that Scotland derives from the Union and that we all know about anyway. The SNP can't deliver on that front, the Tories won't. Labour says the MT will deliver extra nurses across the UK. Some of these will be in Scotland. That doesn't look like a huge own goal to me. But maybe it is. We'll see.

We'd rather keep our own money in the first place! But more immediately the SLAB proposal is completely wrong-headed as SLAB cannot determine Scottish health spending decisions unless they are elected in a completely different election in 2016 - and those decisions are moreover devolved and irrelevant to this coming election. But it is routine for SLAB to complain about the SNP not doing a, b and c even when those are not devolved matters. They must have no worries that this confounds the public and destroys reasoned public debate.

Assuming the SNP aren't scrimping on the provision of nurses,

But they are:

Scotland has seen a 1 per cent real-terms cut in NHS funding throughout the austerity period, according to a recent analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies which was highlighted by the Labour leader yesterday. This compares with a 4 per cent increase under the Tories south of the Border.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/health/jim-murphy-pledges-extra-1-000-nhs-scotland-nurses-1-3651200

CarlottaVance

The Labour leader said his activists would be knocking on more doors than ever in order to meet “everyday working people”. A well-meaning idea, although, given that “everyday working people” tend to work every day, there must be a slight risk they won’t be at home when the activists call. In which case, Labour activists will either have to make do with everyday non-working people...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11325955/Sketch-General-election-2015-the-madness-begins.html

rottenborough

MarqueeMark said:

Carnyx said:

SouthamObserver said:

My hunch is that some on here may be ever so slightly overestimating the potential mansion tax downside for Labour.

As for Murphy and SLAB, surely they are just illustrating the potential redistributive benefits that Scotland derives from the Union and that we all know about anyway. The SNP can't deliver on that front, the Tories won't. Labour says the MT will deliver extra nurses across the UK. Some of these will be in Scotland. That doesn't look like a huge own goal to me. But maybe it is. We'll see.

We'd rather keep our own money in the first place! But more immediately the SLAB proposal is completely wrong-headed as SLAB cannot determine Scottish health spending decisions unless they are elected in a completely different election in 2016 - and those decisions are moreover devolved and irrelevant to this coming election. But it is routine for SLAB to complain about the SNP not doing a, b and c even when those are not devolved matters. They must have no worries that this confounds the public and destroys reasoned public debate.

Assuming the SNP aren't scrimping on the provision of nurses, SLAB have now opened themselves up to a new line of attack - " wasteful Labour". Labour would rather spend money on unnecessary nurses rather than spending where it IS needed - on XYZ.

This all comes down to Labour thinking that those three letters NHS automatically win any argument. It is clearly all they have going into this election. And yet this is the party that admitted it would have to impose NHS cuts - cuts the Tories didn't make despite Labour importing a population needing the NHS....

As John Rentoul points out in the Indie, all we are going to hear for 4 months is Tories = economy; Labour = we love NHS. It's going to be a very long winter....

dr_spyn

Old news perhaps, but Ed might need to revisit his income tax plans.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/31/france-drops-75percent-supertax

Looks as if Hollande's income tax rate of 75% worked, in the way his opponents thought it would. Threw raw meat for the balcony but didn't really add much to the coffers.

Indigo

NickPalmer said:

Some of the wealthiest people I've met were way to the left of me. They will certainly be cheering on the mansion tax.

Somehow that isnt a huge surprise, when you are drowning in cash having to pay a bit more of it to the tax man isn't much of a hardship (assuming their accountants haven't found away to make it a tax on other people - a remarkable number of lefties still employ quite aggressive accounting methods considering their views). Conversely the middle aged couple with a mortgage and two teenage kids is going to notice a drop in their living standards from even a modest tax rise, so they probably aren't going to vote Labour.

Morris_Dancer

F1: McLaren will apparently undergo a full livery redesign, as the silver is too associated with Mercedes. Could hark back to the old red and white days.

In more important news, it seems Honda won't be allowed to develop their engines in 2015, but every other manufacturer will be, due to one of those fascinating loopholes which F1 seems to specialise in:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/30685450

SquareRoot

rottenborough said:

MarqueeMark said:

Carnyx said:

SouthamObserver said:

My hunch is that some on here may be ever so slightly overestimating the potential mansion tax downside for Labour.

As for Murphy and SLAB, surely they are just illustrating the potential redistributive benefits that Scotland derives from the Union and that we all know about anyway. The SNP can't deliver on that front, the Tories won't. Labour says the MT will deliver extra nurses across the UK. Some of these will be in Scotland. That doesn't look like a huge own goal to me. But maybe it is. We'll see.

We'd rather keep our own money in the first place! But more immediately the SLAB proposal is completely wrong-headed as SLAB cannot determine Scottish health spending decisions unless they are elected in a completely different election in 2016 - and those decisions are moreover devolved and irrelevant to this coming election. But it is routine for SLAB to complain about the SNP not doing a, b and c even when those are not devolved matters. They must have no worries that this confounds the public and destroys reasoned public debate.

Assuming the SNP aren't scrimping on the provision of nurses, SLAB have now opened themselves up to a new line of attack - " wasteful Labour". Labour would rather spend money on unnecessary nurses rather than spending where it IS needed - on XYZ.

This all comes down to Labour thinking that those three letters NHS automatically win any argument. It is clearly all they have going into this election. And yet this is the party that admitted it would have to impose NHS cuts - cuts the Tories didn't make despite Labour importing a population needing the NHS....

As John Rentoul points out in the Indie, all we are going to hear for 4 months is Tories = economy; Labour = we love NHS. It's going to be a very long winter....

Who wants to listen to sterile arguments on Radio 4 with each politician talking over the next. As soon as I heard the main news on R4 I switched over to classic FM..

rottenborough

dr_spyn said:

Old news perhaps, but Ed might need to revisit his income tax plans.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/31/france-drops-75percent-supertax

Looks as if Hollande's income tax rate of 75% worked, in the way his opponents thought it would. Threw raw meat for the balcony but didn't really add much to the coffers.

Hmm. Interesting, but Ed doesn't have a 75% income tax plan. As far as I can work out they have no plans on tax other than 50p rate, which is miles off 75p.

chestnut

The Tories mustn't get dragged into talking about Miliband's "distraction" taxes (bankers,mansions) except to ridicule the amounts.

Focus on interest rates, jobs, unemployment, council tax, petrol taxes, green taxes on household fuel bills, TV taxes, property tax in general.

Top it off with his open door immigration policy and general anti-English vulnerabilities.

Keen poll watchers will note the trajectory of Labour's real results in May elections compared to it's polling numbers in January of both 2013 and 2014.

Sub 30 still probable if it's repeated.

Alanbrooke

Of course SLAB Murphy does have some unfortunate connotations.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2295213/Thomas-Murphy-Former-IRA-chief-staff-tipped-major-police-raid-suspected-oil-smuggling.html

audreyanne

NickPalmer said:

Audrey, can you remind me of the terms of our bet? £10 on a 7-point Tory lead, IIRC, but I'm not sure.

Correct Nick (I think!).


Some interesting points being made on here this morning, but that could be personal preference that there seem to be fewer kippers on board. Some of them are probably off collecting their pensions, whilst Isam is doubtless still asleep. Just before you kippers have a go: that last bit was light-hearted.

Okay, apart from the Conservative record why do I think they will win the election? Some of this resides with Labour who are incredibly vulnerable. They have a muppet for a leader and they are wide open to attack on their tax and spend, more so than than since that 1992 referenced below.

A year ago I thought Scotland and London would prop them up. Well, we know what's happening north of the border, so what about London? I'm hearing anecdotes that they are feeling vulnerable in some of their key leafier liberal London marginals. The Mansion Tax is going down like a lead balloon. As Marquee Mark points out, it's not the 55,000 who might be hit under current plans, nor even the extra 750,000 peering through their letterboxes. Nor is it, even, that those to be hit are highly influential. It's that Labour are wide open to the Conservatives telling everyone that the Mansion Tax will be extended down. After all, today's £1m threshold will be tomorrow's £350,000.

You dare touch the English and their homes? Labour are very vulnerable. (And by the way, that's a very good point below about this being a topic that could bring back some Tory kippers.)

Alanbrooke

Carnyx said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Carnyx, quite. The Scots will be well aware of that and think Scottish Labour are peddling piss and calling it whisky, and the English will see Scottish Labour wanting to tax England to pay for Scottish nurses. It makes one wonder just how high up the SNP mole in Scottish Labour is.

Is Jim Murphy one of yours?

That had not occurred to me - but perhaps I don't want to get too paranoid/tinfoily.

Anyway, the SNP are the latest folk pointing out that the Labour sums don't add up, especially with the Barnett consequential added in:

http://www.snp.org/media-centre/news/2015/jan/labour-sums-simply-dont-make-sense

I think that [edit: Labour] statement is absolutely insane. And disgracefully divisive.

Unless they are trying to hug the SNP at the same time as committing party suicide. And even then it doesn't make sense. There is also a question whether Ms Dugdale has agreed this statement (below) with Mr M, never mind most of the rest of SLAB for whom being polite to the SNP is going to be as welcome as a tin of baked beans in Pythagoras's Academy. MInd, it could be a ploy to say 'you might as well vote SLAB as SNP'. Or is she already making a bid for the SLAB head honchoship?

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/scottish-politics/dugdale-id-be-prepared-to-work-with-the-snp-after-general-election.1420455082

It must be richly enjoyable in Scotland atm as the SNP point out someone's numbers don't add up.

Irony lives.

BenM

There is somewhat of a planetary alignment in Labour's favour occurring at the moment in terms of issues - just as the BBCs Norman Smith wonders if Labour are scaremongering (and I think Labour needs to be really careful here, it is very close to the line), all these reports appear about hospitals implementing emergency measures and A&Es being on the brink.

In addition the Tories, who complacently think the economy is their trump card, must be worried that it is clearly softening at the moment, and poor old George is going to be hit with the terribly timed news the deficit has risen this year just days before voting takes place.

Alanbrooke

NickPalmer said:

Audrey, can you remind me of the terms of our bet? £10 on a 7-point Tory lead, IIRC, but I'm not sure.

Indigo said:

AlbionTilIDie said:

Do people who live in £1 Million houses in Barnet really vote Labour anyway?

I dont know, but £1m isn't much of a house in Barnet, and its even less of a house in Fulham. In both places house prices have tripled in the last 10 years, so I can well believe there are a fair few Labour voters that have held on to their house for a while. Hell, there are a load of houses over £1m in Haringey where they vote for a donkey with a red rosette.

Some of the wealthiest people I've met were way to the left of me. They will certainly be cheering on the mansion tax. The number of people who both live in £2m+ houses and vote Labour for non-idealistic reasons is IMO negligble.

YouGov have announced a second methodology change - they're trying to make their London and Scottish subsamples more representative:

"...a rationalisation of our sampling frame to produce a sample that better reflects the distribution of party support around Britain. Our overall demographic targets for Great Britain and the targets we use for our weighting remain unchanged, so these changes should not make any difference to our headline figures. However we are controlling our sampling in London and Scotland more carefully, so anyone who regularly studies our crossbreaks may notice a difference within them. Most importantly, we have started including controls on ethnicity in our London sampling, an important factor in driving voting intention."

For what it's worth, the Scottish subsample today shows a narrower gap than usual. But it's too soon to say anything significant.

Nick "squad leader" Palmer I'm surprised you have time for tittle tattle, I thought you'd be grenading your way house by house through Broxstalingrad your trusty PPSh by your side, there's a war on you know.

Scott_P

BenM said:

There is somewhat of a planetary alignment in Labour's favour occurring at the moment

You are pinning Labour's election hopes on bad news for the NHS and bad news for the economy.

Awesome.

Socrates

@audreyanne

The real vulnerability for Labour on the "mansion tax" isn't the people who are worried it will hit them. It's the people in London and the home counties who feel that revenue raised almost entirely on their localities being unhappy that it's sent out of the area to pay for electoral bribes elsewhere. It's not like income tax where the South East pays a bit more than elsewhere - this is 95% a tax on the South East, and housing taxes are supposed to go to local authorities. With London having a poverty rate higher than Scotland, a lot of people will be angry that the money isn't being spent here. Especially given that the NHS in London is under a lot more pressure the NHS in Scotland.

TGOHF

BenM said:

With every day that passes, the potential for any swingback to the Tories diminishes.

The opening salvoes in the GE campaign haven't helped the blues either. Amateurish at best. A bit desperate too.

Early days old chap - and a budget to come.

weejonnie

CD13 said:

Labour's policies may look lightweight but they're aimed at tapping into the fair cuts and nasty cuts theme. The Mansion Tax may be a silly gimmick but it also taps into this.

The energy freeze and the other meaningless tat may achieve their object. We mean well - the other lot don't. It's childish politics for children.

It may work.

What was that phrase again? "The road to hell . . ."

AndyJS

audreyanne said:

AndyJS said:

Good morning. Oil to fall below $50 today?

Which will be the first supermarket to dare to go for it: 99p a litre?

Probably Asda by the look of things.

The highest petrol price was about 1.42 when the oil price was 115. Now that the oil price is 52, petrol prices ought to be down to 64 pence.

audreyanne

Socrates said:

@audreyanne

The real vulnerability for Labour on the "mansion tax" isn't the people who are worried it will hit them. It's the people in London and the home counties who feel that revenue raised almost entirely on their localities being unhappy that it's sent out of the area to pay for electoral bribes elsewhere. It's not like income tax where the South East pays a bit more than elsewhere - this is 95% a tax on the South East, and housing taxes are supposed to go to local authorities. With London having a poverty rate higher than Scotland, a lot of people will be angry that the money isn't being spent here. Especially given that the NHS in London is under a lot more pressure the NHS in Scotland.

Yes, very good point Socrates. I'll add that into the mix. The idea that London homeowners will have to stump up a new tax to fund Scottish nurses is, as you suggest, about as toxic as it could get for London Labour.

Stupid bloody tax policy. Who will be the first Labour MP to admit as much? Actually, I think Glenda already has?

audreyanne

Yep, I really must keep up with Labour's fiasco: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/02/glenda-jackson-london-labour-mps-opposed-mansion-tax

Of course, the reason London Labour MPs are coming out against ins't necessarily principled. It's because they're in trouble.

OldKingCole

MarqueeMark said:

SouthamObserver said:

My hunch is that some on here may be ever so slightly overestimating the potential mansion tax downside for Labour.

The downside for Labour is that fear over the Mansion Tax is perhaps the area where kippers are most likely to return to the Tory fold.....

Drove round the Clacton area the other day. Didn’t look like many £1m houses, apart from Frinton sea front, which, as someone pointed out was a Tory area anyway.

CarlottaVance

Alanbrooke said:

Carnyx said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Carnyx, quite. The Scots will be well aware of that and think Scottish Labour are peddling piss and calling it whisky, and the English will see Scottish Labour wanting to tax England to pay for Scottish nurses. It makes one wonder just how high up the SNP mole in Scottish Labour is.

Is Jim Murphy one of yours?

That had not occurred to me - but perhaps I don't want to get too paranoid/tinfoily.

Anyway, the SNP are the latest folk pointing out that the Labour sums don't add up, especially with the Barnett consequential added in:

http://www.snp.org/media-centre/news/2015/jan/labour-sums-simply-dont-make-sense

I think that [edit: Labour] statement is absolutely insane. And disgracefully divisive.

Unless they are trying to hug the SNP at the same time as committing party suicide. And even then it doesn't make sense. There is also a question whether Ms Dugdale has agreed this statement (below) with Mr M, never mind most of the rest of SLAB for whom being polite to the SNP is going to be as welcome as a tin of baked beans in Pythagoras's Academy. MInd, it could be a ploy to say 'you might as well vote SLAB as SNP'. Or is she already making a bid for the SLAB head honchoship?

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/scottish-politics/dugdale-id-be-prepared-to-work-with-the-snp-after-general-election.1420455082

It must be richly enjoyable in Scotland atm as the SNP point out someone's numbers don't add up.

Irony lives.

Brent down $0.65 so far today to $52.46 - sub $50 beckons......want their 'very worst case' $99?

Socrates

SouthamObserver said:

My hunch is that some on here may be ever so slightly overestimating the potential mansion tax downside for Labour.

As for Murphy and SLAB, surely they are just illustrating the potential redistributive benefits that Scotland derives from the Union and that we all know about anyway. The SNP can't deliver on that front, the Tories won't. Labour says the MT will deliver extra nurses across the UK. Some of these will be in Scotland. That doesn't look like a huge own goal to me. But maybe it is. We'll see.

A tax paid 95% by one part of the country and given to another isn't redistribution. It's pure extraction.

MarqueeMark

Socrates said:

@audreyanne

The real vulnerability for Labour on the "mansion tax" isn't the people who are worried it will hit them. It's the people in London and the home counties who feel that revenue raised almost entirely on their localities being unhappy that it's sent out of the area to pay for electoral bribes elsewhere. It's not like income tax where the South East pays a bit more than elsewhere - this is 95% a tax on the South East, and housing taxes are supposed to go to local authorities. With London having a poverty rate higher than Scotland, a lot of people will be angry that the money isn't being spent here. Especially given that the NHS in London is under a lot more pressure the NHS in Scotland.

The killer for Labour is when their opponents conflate the two - fears that Labour will HAVE to tax much lower priced houses in order to meet their obligations to Scotland (to try and save their electoral arses).

This campaign has the makings of a perfect storm for Labour. Good job they have such a top captain on the bridge....

bigjohnowls

audreyanne said:

Yep, I really must keep up with Labour's fiasco: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/02/glenda-jackson-london-labour-mps-opposed-mansion-tax

Of course, the reason London Labour MPs are coming out against ins't necessarily principled. It's because they're in trouble.

Trouble?

Lab gains in London nailed on IMO.

Which London Lab MP do you predict will lose their seat?

Socrates

MarqueeMark said:

Socrates said:

@audreyanne

The real vulnerability for Labour on the "mansion tax" isn't the people who are worried it will hit them. It's the people in London and the home counties who feel that revenue raised almost entirely on their localities being unhappy that it's sent out of the area to pay for electoral bribes elsewhere. It's not like income tax where the South East pays a bit more than elsewhere - this is 95% a tax on the South East, and housing taxes are supposed to go to local authorities. With London having a poverty rate higher than Scotland, a lot of people will be angry that the money isn't being spent here. Especially given that the NHS in London is under a lot more pressure the NHS in Scotland.

The killer for Labour is when their opponents conflate the two - fears that Labour will HAVE to tax much lower priced houses in order to meet their obligations to Scotland (to try and save their electoral arses).

This campaign has the makings of a perfect storm for Labour. Good job they have such a top captain on the bridge....

The killer for Labour is when they can only get the measure through on Scottish votes.

bigjohnowls

audreyanne said:

Yep, I really must keep up with Labour's fiasco: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/02/glenda-jackson-london-labour-mps-opposed-mansion-tax

Of course, the reason London Labour MPs are coming out against ins't necessarily principled. It's because they're in trouble.

BTW linking to articles from last October doesn't count as keeping up does it.

MarqueeMark

Socrates said:

MarqueeMark said:

Socrates said:

@audreyanne

The real vulnerability for Labour on the "mansion tax" isn't the people who are worried it will hit them. It's the people in London and the home counties who feel that revenue raised almost entirely on their localities being unhappy that it's sent out of the area to pay for electoral bribes elsewhere. It's not like income tax where the South East pays a bit more than elsewhere - this is 95% a tax on the South East, and housing taxes are supposed to go to local authorities. With London having a poverty rate higher than Scotland, a lot of people will be angry that the money isn't being spent here. Especially given that the NHS in London is under a lot more pressure the NHS in Scotland.

The killer for Labour is when their opponents conflate the two - fears that Labour will HAVE to tax much lower priced houses in order to meet their obligations to Scotland (to try and save their electoral arses).

This campaign has the makings of a perfect storm for Labour. Good job they have such a top captain on the bridge....

The killer for Labour is when they can only get the measure through on Scottish votes.

Scottish votes for London taxes. What could possibly go wrong....?

CarlottaVance

Looks like Jim Murphy's message is getting across:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/550432/Labour-Mansion-tax-English-fund-Scots-nurses (Photo Editor not a fan of Ed)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2898238/Mansion-tax-London-pay-nurses-Scotland-Labour-vow-send-250m-North.html

http://www.itv.com/news/update/2015-01-06/jim-murphy-mansion-tax-to-fund-extra-1-000-nurses-in-scotland/

TGOHF

Socrates said:

MarqueeMark said:

Socrates said:

@audreyanne

The real vulnerability for Labour on the "mansion tax" isn't the people who are worried it will hit them. It's the people in London and the home counties who feel that revenue raised almost entirely on their localities being unhappy that it's sent out of the area to pay for electoral bribes elsewhere. It's not like income tax where the South East pays a bit more than elsewhere - this is 95% a tax on the South East, and housing taxes are supposed to go to local authorities. With London having a poverty rate higher than Scotland, a lot of people will be angry that the money isn't being spent here. Especially given that the NHS in London is under a lot more pressure the NHS in Scotland.

The killer for Labour is when their opponents conflate the two - fears that Labour will HAVE to tax much lower priced houses in order to meet their obligations to Scotland (to try and save their electoral arses).

This campaign has the makings of a perfect storm for Labour. Good job they have such a top captain on the bridge....

The killer for Labour is when they can only get the measure through on Scottish votes.

Or even SNP coalition votes....

Sean_F

Socrates said:

@audreyanne

The real vulnerability for Labour on the "mansion tax" isn't the people who are worried it will hit them. It's the people in London and the home counties who feel that revenue raised almost entirely on their localities being unhappy that it's sent out of the area to pay for electoral bribes elsewhere. It's not like income tax where the South East pays a bit more than elsewhere - this is 95% a tax on the South East, and housing taxes are supposed to go to local authorities. With London having a poverty rate higher than Scotland, a lot of people will be angry that the money isn't being spent here. Especially given that the NHS in London is under a lot more pressure the NHS in Scotland.

That point seems obvious to me. Higher taxes on the rich to fund the NHS? Popular.

Higher taxes on London and the South East to fund Scotland? Not so much.

CarlottaVance

MarqueeMark said:

Socrates said:

MarqueeMark said:

Socrates said:

@audreyanne

The real vulnerability for Labour on the "mansion tax" isn't the people who are worried it will hit them. It's the people in London and the home counties who feel that revenue raised almost entirely on their localities being unhappy that it's sent out of the area to pay for electoral bribes elsewhere. It's not like income tax where the South East pays a bit more than elsewhere - this is 95% a tax on the South East, and housing taxes are supposed to go to local authorities. With London having a poverty rate higher than Scotland, a lot of people will be angry that the money isn't being spent here. Especially given that the NHS in London is under a lot more pressure the NHS in Scotland.

The killer for Labour is when their opponents conflate the two - fears that Labour will HAVE to tax much lower priced houses in order to meet their obligations to Scotland (to try and save their electoral arses).

This campaign has the makings of a perfect storm for Labour. Good job they have such a top captain on the bridge....

The killer for Labour is when they can only get the measure through on Scottish votes.

Scottish votes for London taxes. What could possibly go wrong....?

Wonder what the Evening Standard will lead on.......

Sean_F

bigjohnowls said:

audreyanne said:

Yep, I really must keep up with Labour's fiasco: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/02/glenda-jackson-london-labour-mps-opposed-mansion-tax

Of course, the reason London Labour MPs are coming out against ins't necessarily principled. It's because they're in trouble.

Trouble?

Lab gains in London nailed on IMO.

Which London Lab MP do you predict will lose their seat?

There was a Yougov poll for London, published recently, showing just a 3% swing to Labour in the Capital. That would gain Labour some seats, but short of expectations.

bigjohnowls

MarqueeMark said:

Socrates said:

MarqueeMark said:

Socrates said:

@audreyanne

The real vulnerability for Labour on the "mansion tax" isn't the people who are worried it will hit them. It's the people in London and the home counties who feel that revenue raised almost entirely on their localities being unhappy that it's sent out of the area to pay for electoral bribes elsewhere. It's not like income tax where the South East pays a bit more than elsewhere - this is 95% a tax on the South East, and housing taxes are supposed to go to local authorities. With London having a poverty rate higher than Scotland, a lot of people will be angry that the money isn't being spent here. Especially given that the NHS in London is under a lot more pressure the NHS in Scotland.

The killer for Labour is when their opponents conflate the two - fears that Labour will HAVE to tax much lower priced houses in order to meet their obligations to Scotland (to try and save their electoral arses).

This campaign has the makings of a perfect storm for Labour. Good job they have such a top captain on the bridge....

The killer for Labour is when they can only get the measure through on Scottish votes.

Scottish votes for London taxes. What could possibly go wrong....?

Are you not a Unionist.

20000 Extra nurses message is popular no matter hoe loud Tory press and PBers squeal.

18000 in England 1000 in Wales 1000 in Scotland

All paid for by people with mansions

Only on PB is that a disaster for Ed in the real world 72% support

Sean_F

So far this year, we've had 3 polls putting Labour 1,2, and 3% ahead. I'd say there's still everything to play for.

TGOHF

bigjohnowls said:

MarqueeMark said:

Socrates said:

MarqueeMark said:

Socrates said:

@audreyanne

The real vulnerability for Labour on the "mansion tax" isn't the people who are worried it will hit them. It's the people in London and the home counties who feel that revenue raised almost entirely on their localities being unhappy that it's sent out of the area to pay for electoral bribes elsewhere. It's not like income tax where the South East pays a bit more than elsewhere - this is 95% a tax on the South East, and housing taxes are supposed to go to local authorities. With London having a poverty rate higher than Scotland, a lot of people will be angry that the money isn't being spent here. Especially given that the NHS in London is under a lot more pressure the NHS in Scotland.

The killer for Labour is when their opponents conflate the two - fears that Labour will HAVE to tax much lower priced houses in order to meet their obligations to Scotland (to try and save their electoral arses).

This campaign has the makings of a perfect storm for Labour. Good job they have such a top captain on the bridge....

The killer for Labour is when they can only get the measure through on Scottish votes.

Scottish votes for London taxes. What could possibly go wrong....?

Are you not a Unionist.

20000 Extra nurses message is popular no matter hoe loud Tory press and PBers squeal.

18000 in England 1000 in Wales 1000 in Scotland

All paid for by people with mansions

Only on PB is that a disaster for Ed in the real world 72% support

Why is more nurses good, more foodbanks bad ?

Both are a free resource for those in need...

glw

audreyanne said:

Yes, very good point Socrates. I'll add that into the mix. The idea that London homeowners will have to stump up a new tax to fund Scottish nurses is, as you suggest, about as toxic as it could get for London Labour.

Some Labour chap from the GLA was asked about that on Radio London a few minutes ago. Funnily enough he wants the money to stay in London, not be used as a bulwark by SLAB against the SNP.

macisback

chestnut said:

The Tories mustn't get dragged into talking about Miliband's "distraction" taxes (bankers,mansions) except to ridicule the amounts.

Focus on interest rates, jobs, unemployment, council tax, petrol taxes, green taxes on household fuel bills, TV taxes, property tax in general.

Top it off with his open door immigration policy and general anti-English vulnerabilities.

Keen poll watchers will note the trajectory of Labour's real results in May elections compared to it's polling numbers in January of both 2013 and 2014.

Sub 30 still probable if it's repeated.

Completely right and the Conservative strategy has to get across the message how much the working person will be hit in the pocket. If Labour win the election. NI will go straight up, fuel duty, council tax, unavoidable for the majority, it will hurt but can the Tories spell it out in an effective manner.

Bond_James_Bond

audreyanne said:

Indigo said:

AlbionTilIDie said:

Will be interesting to see if the South East cash for Scottish subsidies policy has a bigger impact in Scotland or the South East; Ed has clearly gambled on the incremental seat holds in Scotland being greater than the incremental seat losses in the South.

Unfortunately it won't have any real impact unless they win the election. At the moment the mansion tax look like it will only affect the people in the 55,000 plushest houses, almost exclusively in London,

I think this misses the point. The Mansion Tax hangs like the Sword of Damocles over aspiration, and actually over one of the most aspirational features of British society: home ownership. It is hitting not just the top end of the market, but houses at c.£500,000 and above, and there are a heck of a lot of those in London.

You're right of course that it may largely only affect London, where Labour can ill-afford to lose any seats given the situation in Scotland. The fact that it would be used to fund Scottish nurses is not exactly going to help Labour's London campaign. (On which subject I am hoping for some London polls.)

As I've also said before, the people this tax is threatening are also influential. It's the stupidest tax devised since Thatcher's poll tax.

Labour's tax bombshells: plural because there are several.

I think the Tories should introduce a 2 to 300% levy on trade union subscriptions and working men's club memberships, and use it to fund council tax reductions in the south-east, to remind Labour voters that spite can be a two-way street.

Morris_Dancer

Slight issue for Miliband is what to do over English taxes for Scottish nurses.

He can keep his head down, but that risks looking cowardly and offers opportunity for both the SNP and parties south of the border to make the running and hammer Labour for their very special policy.

He could raise another area and try to make headway there. The problem is Labour's comfort blanket is the NHS, and if he goes on that (or not) he'll be asked about the deranged promise of Scottish Labour. If he agrees, that won't endear him to the English (and many Scots will be well aware Health is devolved). If he disagrees, that's huge internal dissent during an election, risks making Scottish Labour look like a branch office and may not be believed by the English.

It really is a crazy policy. Who thought it was a good idea?

Alistair

Below is the SLab press release

Jim Murphy has announced Scottish Labour's first election pledge - 1000 extra nurses for Scotland.

Speaking in Edinburgh today, the Scottish Labour leader pledged that funding from the UK wide Mansion Tax will be used for an additional 1,000 nurses.

This pledge means a UK Labour Government will deliver funding for more nurses over and above anything the SNP propose.

Up to 95% of the revenues generated by the Mansion Tax will come from the South East of England, and will provide an additional £250 million for Scotland.

Only Labour can deliver this pledge.

And here is the truthful rewriting

Jim Murphy has announced Labour's first election pledge - The Mansion Tax.

Speaking in Edinburgh today, the Scottish Labour leader pledged that funding from the UK wide Mansion Tax will be used for whatever the SNP want as long as the money is spent on Barnett considerations.

This pledge means a UK Labour Government will deliver funding for whatever the SNP propose as Holyrood has sole discretion over it's budget.

Up to 95% of the revenues generated by the Mansion Tax will come from the South East of England, and will provide an additional £250 million for Scotland.

Only Labour can deliver this pledge

scotslass

Nick Palmer

I saw your reference to a "narrower gap" on the YouGov Scottish sub ample than usual and therefore turned to the first tables of the year with great interest.

It is 46% SNP 30% Labour! I would think Sturgeon and Salmond will be lifting a New Year glass to these sort of figures! If this is the extent of the Murphy honeymoon then he should let his SNP hugging deputy take over asap.

However your comments do reflect an interesting degree of Labour desperation albeit that the Tories on 12% and the LibDems on 2% will be equally despairing. Greens on 6% will be quite pleased.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Owls, taxing England to fund Scottish nurses made the front page of the Telegraph.

Not only that, Health is devolved, so it's irrelevant to this election.

And promising a thousand more nurses than whatever the SNP promises is just childish.

dr_spyn

Will she improve or push up Reckless's support?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-30692763

Tories reselect Tolhurst for another go at UKIP.

OccasionalOptimist

I don't think Jim Murphy gets this at all. Why would Scotland want money from London taxes when it would be able to make much better decisions for itself, without antagonising its neighbour, with full fiscal autonomy? He's thinks that people voted for independence because they want to get one over English people rather than make decisions for themselves: it's probably because of his Westminister bubblitis.

In any case, the mansion tax is not particularly progressive, and a land value tax, or even extra bands on council tax, would be a far more positive step.

CarlottaVance

bigjohnowls said:

MarqueeMark said:

Socrates said:

MarqueeMark said:

Socrates said:

@audreyanne

The real vulnerability for Labour on the "mansion tax" isn't the people who are worried it will hit them. It's the people in London and the home counties who feel that revenue raised almost entirely on their localities being unhappy that it's sent out of the area to pay for electoral bribes elsewhere. It's not like income tax where the South East pays a bit more than elsewhere - this is 95% a tax on the South East, and housing taxes are supposed to go to local authorities. With London having a poverty rate higher than Scotland, a lot of people will be angry that the money isn't being spent here. Especially given that the NHS in London is under a lot more pressure the NHS in Scotland.

The killer for Labour is when their opponents conflate the two - fears that Labour will HAVE to tax much lower priced houses in order to meet their obligations to Scotland (to try and save their electoral arses).

This campaign has the makings of a perfect storm for Labour. Good job they have such a top captain on the bridge....

The killer for Labour is when they can only get the measure through on Scottish votes.

Scottish votes for London taxes. What could possibly go wrong....?

Are you not a Unionist.

20000 Extra nurses message is popular no matter hoe loud Tory press and PBers squeal.

18000 in England 1000 in Wales 1000 in Scotland

All paid for by people with mansions

Only on PB is that a disaster for Ed in the real world 72% support

Once you have to explain it ('spare room subsidy', anyone?) you've lost the argument.

'Scottish Votes on English Taxes (for extra Scottish spending)' is much simpler.........

CarlottaVance

Alistair said:

will be used for whatever the SNP want

Like cutting NHS Scotland by 1% while NHS England has seen its spending rise 4%?

Sean_F

bigjohnowls said:

MarqueeMark said:

Socrates said:

MarqueeMark said:

Socrates said:

@audreyanne

The real vulnerability for Labour on the "mansion tax" isn't the people who are worried it will hit them. It's the people in London and the home counties who feel that revenue raised almost entirely on their localities being unhappy that it's sent out of the area to pay for electoral bribes elsewhere. It's not like income tax where the South East pays a bit more than elsewhere - this is 95% a tax on the South East, and housing taxes are supposed to go to local authorities. With London having a poverty rate higher than Scotland, a lot of people will be angry that the money isn't being spent here. Especially given that the NHS in London is under a lot more pressure the NHS in Scotland.

The killer for Labour is when their opponents conflate the two - fears that Labour will HAVE to tax much lower priced houses in order to meet their obligations to Scotland (to try and save their electoral arses).

This campaign has the makings of a perfect storm for Labour. Good job they have such a top captain on the bridge....

The killer for Labour is when they can only get the measure through on Scottish votes.

Scottish votes for London taxes. What could possibly go wrong....?

Are you not a Unionist.

20000 Extra nurses message is popular no matter hoe loud Tory press and PBers squeal.

18000 in England 1000 in Wales 1000 in Scotland

All paid for by people with mansions

Only on PB is that a disaster for Ed in the real world 72% support

When you have a Scottish Labour leader bragging that Scottish nurses will be paid for by taxpayers in South East England, (which as the SNP have pointed out is a promise that Labour can't deliver) that:-

A) Works against Labour in South East England

Weakens support for the Union in South East England.

Scott_P

@Steven_Swinford: Boris Johnson says Labour's mansion tax will 'punish' people in the South East to 'bribe' Scottish voters #Askboris

bigjohnowls

CarlottaVance said:

bigjohnowls said:

MarqueeMark said:

Socrates said:

MarqueeMark said:

Socrates said:

@audreyanne

The real vulnerability for Labour on the "mansion tax" isn't the people who are worried it will hit them. It's the people in London and the home counties who feel that revenue raised almost entirely on their localities being unhappy that it's sent out of the area to pay for electoral bribes elsewhere. It's not like income tax where the South East pays a bit more than elsewhere - this is 95% a tax on the South East, and housing taxes are supposed to go to local authorities. With London having a poverty rate higher than Scotland, a lot of people will be angry that the money isn't being spent here. Especially given that the NHS in London is under a lot more pressure the NHS in Scotland.

The killer for Labour is when their opponents conflate the two - fears that Labour will HAVE to tax much lower priced houses in order to meet their obligations to Scotland (to try and save their electoral arses).

This campaign has the makings of a perfect storm for Labour. Good job they have such a top captain on the bridge....

The killer for Labour is when they can only get the measure through on Scottish votes.

Scottish votes for London taxes. What could possibly go wrong....?

Are you not a Unionist.

20000 Extra nurses message is popular no matter hoe loud Tory press and PBers squeal.

18000 in England 1000 in Wales 1000 in Scotland

All paid for by people with mansions

Only on PB is that a disaster for Ed in the real world 72% support

Once you have to explain it ('spare room subsidy', anyone?) you've lost the argument.

'Scottish Votes on English Taxes (for extra Scottish spending)' is much simpler.........

Pretty simple MT = 20K extra nurses the voters get it no matter how much Tories try to muddy the water

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/general-election-2015-british-public-back-ed-milibands-mansion-tax-plan-1466934

Alistair

CarlottaVance said:

Alistair said:

will be used for whatever the SNP want

Like cutting NHS Scotland by 1% while NHS England has seen its spending rise 4%?

Not the SNP's problem if the Tories need to splurge money on wasteful bureaucracy rather than getting decent efficiency savings out of the system.