It would be shocking if LDs lost Romsey, Cambs. It's not a Labour area at all.
FPT neither UK nor euro area but still EU. Apparently the Danish People's Party did worse overall in urban areas, both in terms of their pre- and post-election support, as well as getting smaller (positive) swings in urban areas. However, the increase in rural support was enough to leave them the largest pro-government party. And will Greenland be the next Scotland? (See https://welections.wordpress.com/2015/06/25/guest-post-denmark-2015/)
No amount of self deprecation will mitigate the overwhelming damage this man has caused for himself personally, his family and left leaning causes. Well done Ed Miliband. And now please just disappear.
No amount of self deprecation will mitigate the overwhelming damage this man has caused for himself personally, his family and left leaning causes. Well done Ed Miliband. And now please just disappear.
I think you're being harsh there - failing to become PM was probably the best life-present he could give to his children :-)
Seriously (and with apologies to David and to Miliband mère), I wouldn't have wanted to be the child of any frontline politician, let alone the PM. Kid of a backbencher might not have been so deleterious, but it would help if it were for a London (or nearby) constituency. Otherwise having a parent to-ing and fro-ing between homes is still quite disruptive, even if not as totally life consuming.
(Incidentally I regard this as being one of the perils of the increasing youth of our leaders. There are good folk out there who are put off getting into politics, particularly participating at the highest level, because of the impact on family life. And those who wait til the kids have flown the nest, or are at least a bit more independent, are generally regarded as "past it". On the flip side, I'm not entirely sure I want people in power who are prepared to make so many sacrifices in their personal life, they seem to want it too much! Perhaps part of the solution might be having families younger - been a long time since early 20s was the norm among the middle classes - but social trends are against it.)
No amount of self deprecation will mitigate the overwhelming damage this man has caused for himself personally, his family and left leaning causes. Well done Ed Miliband. And now please just disappear.
He'll end up doing a Hague or IDS and serve under a successor.
Ed Miliband future Foreign Secretary or Work & Pensions Secretary.
You read it here first.
Oooh, I might be able to make a thread out of that
No amount of self deprecation will mitigate the overwhelming damage this man has caused for himself personally, his family and left leaning causes. Well done Ed Miliband. And now please just disappear.
He'll end up doing a Hague or IDS and serve under a successor.
Ed Miliband future Foreign Secretary or Work & Pensions Secretary.
You read it here first.
Oooh, I might be able to make a thread out of that
I think whoever is the new leader should immediately offer him a new shadow cabinet post. Even though he clearly wasn't frontman material, he's still better than a good half or two-thirds of the shadow cabinet (though not sure if that says more about his quality or the low quality of the shadow cabinet!).
No amount of self deprecation will mitigate the overwhelming damage this man has caused for himself personally, his family and left leaning causes. Well done Ed Miliband. And now please just disappear.
He'll end up doing a Hague or IDS and serve under a successor.
Ed Miliband future Foreign Secretary or Work & Pensions Secretary.
You read it here first.
Oooh, I might be able to make a thread out of that
I think whoever is the new leader should immediately offer him a new shadow cabinet post. Even though he clearly wasn't frontman material, he's still better than a good half or two-thirds of the shadow cabinet (though not sure if that says more about his quality or the low quality of the shadow cabinet!).
The careers of most politicians end in failure. One problem of the cult of youth in politics is that it is difficult to leave the job and gracefully retire (Ed is 46 I think). Hanging around on the backbenches sulking like Ted Heath is one possibility, but a shadow cabinet role is another. Hard to pick the right one though. Preferably not one with a lot of public speaking.
To supplement Tissue Price's excellent article on who might come 2nd in Holyrood 2016. Here's one of my posts from December 2014 where I tried a bit of rudimentary sensitivity analysis around the Greens coming 2nd, the polls have moved on a bit but the principle still applies:
" Holyrood 2016 could lead to the virtual extinction of the mainstream parties in Scotland. I think in 2016 Holyrood the Greens could come second after the SNP. Anyway I drafted this which some of you will find /interesting/prophetic/deluded - at the end of the day we're a betting site: - enjoy!! :
'Don’t waste your SNP regional vote in 2016 – recycle it to the Greens
Based on current polling the SNP would win around 90% of the constituency seats. Therefore, unless the SNP are expected to get around 55-60% of the regional vote in a region, in which case D’Hondt would work in their favour, most of the SNP regional votes are going to be wasted. Therefore, I would expect SNP tactical voting on a grand scale with the Greens being the major beneficiary of these votes. The Greens could end up snapping at SLAB’s heels for second place.
Running the recent YouGov Scotland poll constituency and regional vote figures through the Scotland Votes calculator the results were as follows:
You will note that with a regional vote of 42% the SNP only get two regional seats in comparison to the Greens getting 8 seats on 8%. However if a 5% of the SNP supporters were to vote tactically for the Greens in the regional ballot (taking SNP down to 37% and the Greens to 13%) the results would be as follows:
No amount of self deprecation will mitigate the overwhelming damage this man has caused for himself personally, his family and left leaning causes. Well done Ed Miliband. And now please just disappear.
He'll end up doing a Hague or IDS and serve under a successor.
Ed Miliband future Foreign Secretary or Work & Pensions Secretary.
You read it here first.
Oooh, I might be able to make a thread out of that
I think whoever is the new leader should immediately offer him a new shadow cabinet post. Even though he clearly wasn't frontman material, he's still better than a good half or two-thirds of the shadow cabinet (though not sure if that says more about his quality or the low quality of the shadow cabinet!).
The careers of most politicians end in failure. One problem of the cult of youth in politics is that it is difficult to leave the job and gracefully retire (Ed is 46 I think). Hanging around on the backbenches sulking like Ted Heath is one possibility, but a shadow cabinet role is another. Hard to pick the right one though. Preferably not one with a lot of public speaking.
"All political lives, unless they are cut off in midstream at a happy juncture, end in failure, because that is the nature of politics and of human affairs. "
Or did the basic idea predate him? I can't think of an earlier phrase or quotation to quite the same effect.
Probably better to get rid of the clawback of allowances at £105 000 and leave the 45% headine rate untouched. The restoration of the individual tax allowance would smooth out the 61% effective peak rate.
Probably better to get rid of the clawback of allowances at £105 000 and leave the 45% headine rate untouched. The restoration of the individual tax allowance would smooth out the 61% effective peak rate.
Agreed. That's a really weird anomaly that needs ironing out.
No amount of self deprecation will mitigate the overwhelming damage this man has caused for himself personally, his family and left leaning causes. Well done Ed Miliband. And now please just disappear.
To be fair to the man on the escalator, they both led their parties to slaughter at the polls in May.
Probably better to get rid of the clawback of allowances at £105 000 and leave the 45% headine rate untouched. The restoration of the individual tax allowance would smooth out the 61% effective peak rate.
Yes, you are getting a full house on this one.
This is going to be THE budget of this Parliament. There is going to be major cuts, hopefully a real and substantial increase in the NWM. There will hopefully be some grandstanding announcements on export promotion as well. The idea of all this being overshadowed by a cut in the HRT is such bad politics. Osborne almost never makes the same mistake twice and he has already made this one.
That's a big mistake. It would be far better economically to address the bizarre features of personal allowances and national insurance. It will just cement the Tories as party of the rich meme once again.
I'd like to get my hopes up, but unfortunately Osborne is not stupid enough to make all of Labour's Christmases come at once, by handing yet another tax cut to the fat cats at the same time as slashing tax credits for the poor.
No amount of self deprecation will mitigate the overwhelming damage this man has caused for himself personally, his family and left leaning causes. Well done Ed Miliband. And now please just disappear.
He'll end up doing a Hague or IDS and serve under a successor.
Ed Miliband future Foreign Secretary or Work & Pensions Secretary.
You read it here first.
Oooh, I might be able to make a thread out of that
I think whoever is the new leader should immediately offer him a new shadow cabinet post. Even though he clearly wasn't frontman material, he's still better than a good half or two-thirds of the shadow cabinet (though not sure if that says more about his quality or the low quality of the shadow cabinet!).
The careers of most politicians end in failure. One problem of the cult of youth in politics is that it is difficult to leave the job and gracefully retire (Ed is 46 I think). Hanging around on the backbenches sulking like Ted Heath is one possibility, but a shadow cabinet role is another. Hard to pick the right one though. Preferably not one with a lot of public speaking.
"All political lives, unless they are cut off in midstream at a happy juncture, end in failure, because that is the nature of politics and of human affairs. "
Or did the basic idea predate him? I can't think of an earlier phrase or quotation to quite the same effect.
Isn't it a political restatement of the Peter Principle dating from 1969?
I am glad the restoration of the personal allowance is popular, it is the 61% rate that I pay!
DavidL/JEO I know, I could not believe it myself at first, I know Lord Lawson has recommended it and there are economic arguments but politically it would be disastrous while Osborne also announces a slashing of the welfare budget, the defence budget, social care etc Yet, apparently Osborne has told his Treasury team it is a strong possibility according to the FT. Last time the LDs blocked it and only allowed the cut back to 45% and Cameron also had reservations about cutting it all the way back, the Tories had a nosedive in the polls they eventually recovered from. If Labour are led by a better leader than Ed Miliband they may not be as lucky again
DavidL/JEO I know, I could not believe it myself at first, I know Lord Lawson has recommended it and there are economic arguments but politically it would be disastrous while Osborne also announces a slashing of the welfare budget, the defence budget, social care etc Yet, apparently Osborne has told his Treasury team it is a strong possibility according to the FT. Last time the LDs blocked it and only allowed the cut back to 45% and Cameron also had reservations about cutting it all the way back, the Tories had a nosedive in the polls they eventually recovered from. If Labour are led by a better leader than Ed Miliband they may not be as lucky again
Very high profile tax cuts combined with cuts in benefits is something I would find impossible to support frankly. Cuts like that can be made when the budget is in balance and government spending is no longer shrinking as a share of the economy. If everything goes well (it won't) maybe in 2019.
That's a big mistake. It would be far better economically to address the bizarre features of personal allowances and national insurance. It will just cement the Tories as party of the rich meme once again.
Indeed it would be quite possible to bring down the threshold for the 45% rate by reinstating the personal allowance and being tax neutral while removing the anomaly.
DavidL/JEO I know, I could not believe it myself at first, I know Lord Lawson has recommended it and there are economic arguments but politically it would be disastrous while Osborne also announces a slashing of the welfare budget, the defence budget, social care etc Yet, apparently Osborne has told his Treasury team it is a strong possibility according to the FT. Last time the LDs blocked it and only allowed the cut back to 45% and Cameron also had reservations about cutting it all the way back, the Tories had a nosedive in the polls they eventually recovered from. If Labour are led by a better leader than Ed Miliband they may not be as lucky again
Very high profile tax cuts combined with cuts in benefits is something I would find impossible to support frankly. Cuts like that can be made when the budget is in balance and government spending is no longer shrinking as a share of the economy. If everything goes well (it won't) maybe in 2019.
Too close to the election, better to do it now and get it over with if that's what they have in mind. Just reinstate the personal allowance for over £100k, it's grossly unfair and won't cause terrible headlines.
I'd like to get my hopes up, but unfortunately Osborne is not stupid enough to make all of Labour's Christmases come at once, by handing yet another tax cut to the fat cats at the same time as slashing tax credits for the poor.
Is this just another Tory misleading leak like the child poverty numbers.
Leak one thing and then actually do something that isn't as bad, so you look great.
DavidL/JEO I know, I could not believe it myself at first, I know Lord Lawson has recommended it and there are economic arguments but politically it would be disastrous while Osborne also announces a slashing of the welfare budget, the defence budget, social care etc Yet, apparently Osborne has told his Treasury team it is a strong possibility according to the FT. Last time the LDs blocked it and only allowed the cut back to 45% and Cameron also had reservations about cutting it all the way back, the Tories had a nosedive in the polls they eventually recovered from. If Labour are led by a better leader than Ed Miliband they may not be as lucky again
Very high profile tax cuts combined with cuts in benefits is something I would find impossible to support frankly. Cuts like that can be made when the budget is in balance and government spending is no longer shrinking as a share of the economy. If everything goes well (it won't) maybe in 2019.
Too close to the election, better to do it now and get it over with if that's what they have in mind. Just reinstate the personal allowance for over £100k, it's grossly unfair and won't cause terrible headlines.
As someone who loses my personal allowance but does not pay the 45% rate I strongly agree with you. Politically I think even this is problematic. £12bn of welfare cuts may be necessary but no one should pretend that many of the most disadvantaged in our society will not be hurt by this. It is not the context for tax cuts of any kind. And there is still the not so small matter of the deficit....
No amount of self deprecation will mitigate the overwhelming damage this man has caused for himself personally, his family and left leaning causes. Well done Ed Miliband. And now please just disappear.
He'll end up doing a Hague or IDS and serve under a successor.
Ed Miliband future Foreign Secretary or Work & Pensions Secretary.
You read it here first.
Oooh, I might be able to make a thread out of that
I think whoever is the new leader should immediately offer him a new shadow cabinet post. Even though he clearly wasn't frontman material, he's still better than a good half or two-thirds of the shadow cabinet (though not sure if that says more about his quality or the low quality of the shadow cabinet!).
The careers of most politicians end in failure. One problem of the cult of youth in politics is that it is difficult to leave the job and gracefully retire (Ed is 46 I think). Hanging around on the backbenches sulking like Ted Heath is one possibility, but a shadow cabinet role is another. Hard to pick the right one though. Preferably not one with a lot of public speaking.
"All political lives, unless they are cut off in midstream at a happy juncture, end in failure, because that is the nature of politics and of human affairs. "
Or did the basic idea predate him? I can't think of an earlier phrase or quotation to quite the same effect.
Isn't it a political restatement of the Peter Principle dating from 1969?
I am glad the restoration of the personal allowance is popular, it is the 61% rate that I pay!
I think the Peter Principle (people are promoted to the level that first shows their incompetence) is conceptually distinct from "all political lives end in failure". - the Peter Principle is about people getting stuck in place in a position they are not qualified for, whereas Powell's point was more that political endings are unhappy ones - I think you need something more akin to "nobody quits on a high".
Politics is less like Middle Management and more like the Rex Nemorensis - the King-Priest of the Grove, whose station would only last until he is killed by his successor in trial by combat. A lucky one may defeat many challengers, of course, but one at last must succeed unless some other fatal intervention strikes first.
Is this just another Tory misleading leak like the child poverty numbers.
Leak one thing and then actually do something that isn't as bad, so you look great.
Was the child poverty thing a "Tory misleading leak"? I might be missing something here. I thought it was simply that today was the day that the figures were going to be released (and this was a date known well in advance), the think tanks were predicting a big rise, the press were waiting for the announcement, various charities and campaign groups had got their megaphones out ready, but the good news in the stats turned out to catch people by surprise. I'm not sure what underhandery is being alleged about the affair.
I'd like to get my hopes up, but unfortunately Osborne is not stupid enough to make all of Labour's Christmases come at once, by handing yet another tax cut to the fat cats at the same time as slashing tax credits for the poor.
If ever there was a time to get away with doing something that should be done, but may be a little unpopular, it is when you are riding high in the polls after just having won an election. Especially as it will likely increase the tax take within the life of the parliament anyway.
45% is the same rate as Germany, Australia and China so less likely to be uncompetitive. Economically it could still have a net benefit, but politically were it to happen there is no doubt it would be a giftwrapped welcome present for the new Labour leader when the same budget contains hefty cuts to welfare and public services
Watching newsnight, it is just amazing how out of touch most eurozone politicians really are... The think tank guy gets it, even the British media are beginning to get it.
WG Yes Burnham not doing too badly at the moment but Suzanne Evans the best so far, Fraser Nelson also on and Rev Giles Fraser (Greek Finance Minister pulled out as in Brussels)
Cutting the rate from 50% to 45% put up the tax take
Cutting it again could (should) do the same
May be true Scott but completely irrelevant.
It wouldn't be completely irrelevant if it were true, since bringing down the deficit would be beneficial for non-political purposes.
The "if true" part is a very big "if". I'm not even convinced by the 50% to 45% supposed "increase". In principle it is plausible. I'd be astonished if the revenue-maximising is very far north of 50%. But the data available is very limited - it doesn't let you do a long-term comparison. The 50% rate was in place for a very brief period, and by shifting income between years there would have been attempts to bring income forward to avoid it at the beginning, and then to defer income to avoid it at the end. So I'm not convinced we ever got a clear picture of what the 50% rate would have brought in if left in place.
Peter Diamond and Emmanuel Saez are probably the go-to economists on this sort of thing, though they're writing in an American context. From memory they are thinking 50% to 70% and probably on the higher end of that range, but comparisons are not straightforward because of the different tax systems (e.g. Brits have NI), income distributions, and income elasticities.
The most serious (i.e. not partisan hackery) attempt I've seen at estimating these things is by the blogger Paul Barden. Scott probably wouldn't agree much. But then Barden isn't a professional economist (he is/was an investment banking quant guy) and I don't know what academic consensus in the UK is.
WG Yes Burnham not doing too badly at the moment but Suzanne Evans the best so far, Fraser Nelson also on and Rev Giles Fraser (Greek Finance Minister pulled out as in Brussels)
Giles Fraser is a complete idiot, his ideas have been decimated by the electorate, why are we subject to people like him every week on QT?
WG Yes Burnham not doing too badly at the moment but Suzanne Evans the best so far, Fraser Nelson also on and Rev Giles Fraser (Greek Finance Minister pulled out as in Brussels)
Burnham is coming across as a bully, he should take responsibility for the warped tax credit system.
nigel4england It was Brown who introduced tax credits not Burnham and I don't think he is coming across as a bully at all, the issue is making work pay and he had a sensible point about encouraging companies to pay a living wage so welfare does not need to top it up
nigel4england He is standing in for the Greek Finance Minister I believe, actually 3 rightwingers on this panel, Fraser Nelson, Amber Rudd and Suzanne Evans and 2 leftwingers, Burnham and Revd Fraser
For a professional SPAD/Politician, Burnham is really quite poor on the detail of a) economics and b) Europe. Reminds me of that awful video of EdM saying that it was reckless and provocative at a time when negotiations are ongoing.
nigel4england It was Brown who introduced tax credits not Burnham and I don't think he is coming across as a bully at all, the issue is making work pay and he had a sensible point about encouraging companies to pay a living wage so welfare does not need to top it up
That is not his point at all, it is the Conservative point of paying a living wage and raising the tax threshold. He is shouting down Amber Rudd, presumably to appeal to Labour supporters in his leadership bid, and all he is doing is looking desperate.
Mortimer He was pro Europe and anti euro and his idea on making work pay was a sound one, the average voter has an attention span of about 10 seconds to get a point across on TV they do not want to be deluged with detail, Cameron certainly does not
nigel4england He is not shouting her down at all, she is just performing the worst of the 3 politicians on the panel, Burnham did mention the importance of rewarding companies which pay a living wage through the tax system
Mortimer He was pro Europe and anti euro and his idea on making work pay was a sound one, the average voter has an attention span of about 10 seconds to get a point across on TV they do not want to be deluged with detail, Cameron certainly does not
But it's not his point at all, it is Cameron's, is he agreeing with him?
Mortimer He was pro Europe and anti euro and his idea on making work pay was a sound one, the average voter has an attention span of about 10 seconds to get a point across on TV they do not want to be deluged with detail, Cameron certainly does not
But the right conclusions have to be grounded in detail and understanding - not convinced he has either. Ken Clarke is the perfect example of combining both with a 10 second sound bite, and to be fair to Cameron, he isn't bad at it either.
Well Cameron sometimes agreed with Blair, so what, as the Independent Poll showed this week Burnham has the highest net favourables amongst the public of the leadership contendors and is the biggest threat to the Tories
nigel4england He is not shouting her down at all, she is just performing the worst of the 3 politicians on the panel, Burnham did mention the importance of rewarding companies which pay a living wage through the tax system
Burnham is a real lightweight, if he is all Labour have to offer then you are looking at the end of them.
As a Tory, my ordered list for preference of the next Labour leader is:
1) Burnham 2) Corbyn 3) Cooper 4) Kendall
Kendall would give me sleepless nights, Cooper might make winning the Midlands marginals harder. Corbyn is articulate. Burnham only wins votes of the people who already vote for Labour in cities and the North.
Really?! She may not be particularly popular on the panel with the audience as part of the Government, but I thought she had been quite impressive, a tough no nonsense politician.
nigel4england He is not shouting her down at all, she is just performing the worst of the 3 politicians on the panel, Burnham did mention the importance of rewarding companies which pay a living wage through the tax system
Burnham is a real lightweight, if he is all Labour have to offer then you are looking at the end of them.
He did sound a bit lightweight on the Greece question admittedly, but I thought he was great on the tax credits and migrant crisis, sounded like he knew his stuff and actually showed some bloody passion on tax credits (unusual for Labour these days).
As a Tory, my ordered list for preference of the next Labour leader is:
1) Burnham 2) Corbyn 3) Cooper 4) Kendall
Kendall would give me sleepless nights, Cooper might make winning the Midlands marginals harder. Corbyn is articulate. Burnham only wins votes of the people who already vote for Labour in cities and the North.
There's quite a lot of marginals for Labour to gain in the North still. In any case, the poll earlier this week showed Burnham was very popular among the old, the group where the Tories really slaughtered Labour this time.
nigel4england He is not shouting her down at all, she is just performing the worst of the 3 politicians on the panel, Burnham did mention the importance of rewarding companies which pay a living wage through the tax system
Burnham is a real lightweight, if he is all Labour have to offer then you are looking at the end of them.
He did sound a bit lightweight on the Greece question admittedly, but I thought he was great on the tax credits and migrant crisis, sounded like he knew his stuff and actually showed some bloody passion on tax credits (unusual for Labour these days).
He agrees with the Tory position on tax credits, he is a joke.
nigel4england He is not shouting her down at all, she is just performing the worst of the 3 politicians on the panel, Burnham did mention the importance of rewarding companies which pay a living wage through the tax system
Burnham is a real lightweight, if he is all Labour have to offer then you are looking at the end of them.
He did sound a bit lightweight on the Greece question admittedly, but I thought he was great on the tax credits and migrant crisis, sounded like he knew his stuff and actually showed some bloody passion on tax credits (unusual for Labour these days).
He was a bit better on the migrant crisis.
You are a big fan of tax credits, aren't you? Honest question, do you not think it would be better to reduce the size of the state, grow the private sector and observe natural wage growth than top up the salaries of the low paid with an inefficient tax system...
I still think QT isn't getting the political balance of the audience right. More people in favour of immigration than you'd find in a representative sample I think.
Mortimer Burnham is the most dangerous for the Tories by far and I am no Labour voter, he could win both floaters and hold the core, Kendall may win a few floaters but turn off Scotland, Corbyn is too leftwing for floaters and Cooper has little charisma and has also moved to a more leftwing position. As an Independent poll of the general public this week showed Burnham had a net positive v negative rating of +14%, Kendall +6%, Cooper - 6%, Corbyn -15% it is the public as a whole whose opinion will count at the end of the day, not yours http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-leadership-andy-burnham-considered-the-contender-most-likely-to-improve-partys-general-election-chances-10340208.html
nigel4england He is not shouting her down at all, she is just performing the worst of the 3 politicians on the panel, Burnham did mention the importance of rewarding companies which pay a living wage through the tax system
Burnham is a real lightweight, if he is all Labour have to offer then you are looking at the end of them.
He did sound a bit lightweight on the Greece question admittedly, but I thought he was great on the tax credits and migrant crisis, sounded like he knew his stuff and actually showed some bloody passion on tax credits (unusual for Labour these days).
He was a bit better on the migrant crisis.
You are a big fan of tax credits, aren't you? Honest question, do you not think it would be better to reduce the size of the state, grow the private sector and observe natural wage growth than top up the salaries of the low paid with an inefficient tax system...
I'd love it if some of these greedy mega-corporations like McDonald's, raking in millions in profits, were actually made to pay their employees decently and thus make the need for tax credits redundant. Unfortunately, I have no faith in the Tories to have the guts to make them do that, so in the absence of that tax credits definitley should stay.
I still think QT isn't getting the political balance of the audience right. More people in favour of immigration than you'd find in a representative sample I think.
After Leeds in the debates expect it to get more left wing!
I still think QT isn't getting the political balance of the audience right. More people in favour of immigration than you'd find in a representative sample I think.
In any representative sample of hundreds of people you would find dozens in favour of immigration. There are a large number of speakers in the audience (and applause) for those against immigration too.
Mortimer Burnham is the most dangerous for the Tories by far and I am no Labour voter, he could win both floaters and hold the core, Kendall may win a few floaters but turn off Scotland, Corbyn is too leftwing for floaters and Cooper has little charisma and has also moved to a more leftwing position. As an Independent poll of the general public this week showed Burnham had a net positive v negative rating of +14%, Kendall +6%, Cooper - 6%, Corbyn -15% it is the public as a whole whose opinion will count at the end of the day, not yours http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-leadership-andy-burnham-considered-the-contender-most-likely-to-improve-partys-general-election-chances-10340208.html
Based on polling, right? Because that has been really successful recently (remember the plurality 'coin toss'?!)
I'm using the same echo chamber that I used to work out that no-one in the South would vote for EdM, and indeed that waverers would vote Tory because of EdM; even fewer like Burnham.
Mortimer Burnham is the most dangerous for the Tories by far and I am no Labour voter, he could win both floaters and hold the core, Kendall may win a few floaters but turn off Scotland, Corbyn is too leftwing for floaters and Cooper has little charisma and has also moved to a more leftwing position. As an Independent poll of the general public this week showed Burnham had a net positive v negative rating of +14%, Kendall +6%, Cooper - 6%, Corbyn -15% it is the public as a whole whose opinion will count at the end of the day, not yours http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-leadership-andy-burnham-considered-the-contender-most-likely-to-improve-partys-general-election-chances-10340208.html
However the public as a whole will voice their opinion once again in 2020 and as I said Burnham is a gift for the Tories.
nigel4england He is not shouting her down at all, she is just performing the worst of the 3 politicians on the panel, Burnham did mention the importance of rewarding companies which pay a living wage through the tax system
Burnham is a real lightweight, if he is all Labour have to offer then you are looking at the end of them.
He did sound a bit lightweight on the Greece question admittedly, but I thought he was great on the tax credits and migrant crisis, sounded like he knew his stuff and actually showed some bloody passion on tax credits (unusual for Labour these days).
He was a bit better on the migrant crisis.
You are a big fan of tax credits, aren't you? Honest question, do you not think it would be better to reduce the size of the state, grow the private sector and observe natural wage growth than top up the salaries of the low paid with an inefficient tax system...
I'd love it if some of these greedy mega-corporations like McDonald's, raking in millions in profits, were actually made to pay their employees decently and thus make the need for tax credits redundant. Unfortunately, I have no faith in the Tories to have the guts to make them do that, so in the absence of that tax credits definitley should stay.
Megacorporations like mcdonalds make big profits on volume, but actually have very tight margins. Fast food is a viciously competitive market place. if you push labour up above what the market reckons its worth you will see innovation that reduces the amount of labour. Just look how the big supermarkets have reacted to intense pressure, theyve cut back on their biggest cost, staff. Self serve kiosks for fast food are just round the corner.
nigel4england He is not shouting her down at all, she is just performing the worst of the 3 politicians on the panel, Burnham did mention the importance of rewarding companies which pay a living wage through the tax system
Burnham is a real lightweight, if he is all Labour have to offer then you are looking at the end of them.
He did sound a bit lightweight on the Greece question admittedly, but I thought he was great on the tax credits and migrant crisis, sounded like he knew his stuff and actually showed some bloody passion on tax credits (unusual for Labour these days).
He was a bit better on the migrant crisis.
You are a big fan of tax credits, aren't you? Honest question, do you not think it would be better to reduce the size of the state, grow the private sector and observe natural wage growth than top up the salaries of the low paid with an inefficient tax system...
I'd love it if some of these greedy mega-corporations like McDonald's, raking in millions in profits, were actually made to pay their employees decently and thus make the need for tax credits redundant. Unfortunately, I have no faith in the Tories to have the guts to make them do that, so in the absence of that tax credits definitley should stay.
I agree, Tesco's even despite their recent troubles make huge profits yet rely on the taxpayer to subsidies wages.
nigel4england Yes, but the tone was already set for 2015 when Labour elected Ed Miliband despite David Miliband clearly the more popular brother amongst the public in the polls, winning popularity polls is not enough in itself to win an election, but picking the less popular candidate as leader puts you on the backfoot from day 1
nigel4england He is not shouting her down at all, she is just performing the worst of the 3 politicians on the panel, Burnham did mention the importance of rewarding companies which pay a living wage through the tax system
Burnham is a real lightweight, if he is all Labour have to offer then you are looking at the end of them.
He did sound a bit lightweight on the Greece question admittedly, but I thought he was great on the tax credits and migrant crisis, sounded like he knew his stuff and actually showed some bloody passion on tax credits (unusual for Labour these days).
He was a bit better on the migrant crisis.
You are a big fan of tax credits, aren't you? Honest question, do you not think it would be better to reduce the size of the state, grow the private sector and observe natural wage growth than top up the salaries of the low paid with an inefficient tax system...
I'd love it if some of these greedy mega-corporations like McDonald's, raking in millions in profits, were actually made to pay their employees decently and thus make the need for tax credits redundant. Unfortunately, I have no faith in the Tories to have the guts to make them do that, so in the absence of that tax credits definitley should stay.
No forcing required; if jobs continue to grow at the current rate for the next couple of years then even the lowest wages will rise purely on the basis of competition for employees. I'm hoping for the NMW to be a moot point.
nigel4england He is not shouting her down at all, she is just performing the worst of the 3 politicians on the panel, Burnham did mention the importance of rewarding companies which pay a living wage through the tax system
Burnham is a real lightweight, if he is all Labour have to offer then you are looking at the end of them.
He did sound a bit lightweight on the Greece question admittedly, but I thought he was great on the tax credits and migrant crisis, sounded like he knew his stuff and actually showed some bloody passion on tax credits (unusual for Labour these days).
He was a bit better on the migrant crisis.
You are a big fan of tax credits, aren't you? Honest question, do you not think it would be better to reduce the size of the state, grow the private sector and observe natural wage growth than top up the salaries of the low paid with an inefficient tax system...
I'd love it if some of these greedy mega-corporations like McDonald's, raking in millions in profits, were actually made to pay their employees decently and thus make the need for tax credits redundant. Unfortunately, I have no faith in the Tories to have the guts to make them do that, so in the absence of that tax credits definitley should stay.
I agree, Tesco's even despite their recent troubles make huge profits yet rely on the taxpayer to subsidies wages.
No they don't. Tesco's pay their wages they pay which I'm sure are at or above minimum wage. There is no automatic subsidy to top up anyone's wages.
I still think QT isn't getting the political balance of the audience right. More people in favour of immigration than you'd find in a representative sample I think.
After Leeds in the debates expect it to get more left wing!
I still think QT isn't getting the political balance of the audience right. More people in favour of immigration than you'd find in a representative sample I think.
After Leeds in the debates expect it to get more left wing!
Outside the election period, only the truly interested turn up to these things. Even in elections that happens. Look at the hustings for labour leadership. Candidates getting booed because they think that someone on benefits should not get more than someone on £29k salary.
Never in a normal balanced audience would you get that. You wouldnt even get that in an audience of labour only voters. You would get booed out of the hall for suggesting that it was acceptable someone on benefits got more than 20k.
Mortimer More final polls in 2015 had the Tories ahead than Labour, they just failed to predict a majority. Of recent party leaders Major, Blair, Cameron and Brown all led popularity polls prior to their election as leader and all but 1 were elected PM. Hague, IDS, Howard, Ed Miliband did not and all lost. There are also a lot of northern marginals in Bury, Blackpool, Scarborough, Stockton, Pendle, Morecambe, Warrington etc Labour have lost to the Tories Burnham could help win back, and Labour do not actually need to win the South as long as they win the North, the Midlands, Wales and London (if they do a bit better in Scotland too that would help)
"The BBC Trust will be axed and its powers handed to the communications regulator Ofcom, Westminster sources have revealed. For the first time in the broadcaster’s nearly century-long history, it will be governed by an external body, as part of the renegotiation of the BBC Charter. The move is expected to be signalled in a Green Paper that will formally trigger Charter renewal negotiations within weeks. It comes after John Whittingdale, the new Culture Secretary, insisted that he does not have a “vendetta” against the corporation but warned that it needed a “very robust system in place” to deal with issues of impartiality"
Not sure why you're so confident that Burnham would appeal to some of those marginals you name. I live in Warrington South (Tory marginal you mentioned) and my wife lived in Leigh (Burnham's constituency) when we first met. Leigh may be less than 10 miles from my house but that doesn't mean we love Burnham.
That's like assuming people who live in Manchester must love Liverpool Football Club, while Liverpudlians must love Manchester United because they're nearby to each other.
"The BBC Trust will be axed and its powers handed to the communications regulator Ofcom, Westminster sources have revealed. For the first time in the broadcaster’s nearly century-long history, it will be governed by an external body, as part of the renegotiation of the BBC Charter. The move is expected to be signalled in a Green Paper that will formally trigger Charter renewal negotiations within weeks. It comes after John Whittingdale, the new Culture Secretary, insisted that he does not have a “vendetta” against the corporation but warned that it needed a “very robust system in place” to deal with issues of impartiality"
Not before time!
LOL. They were going to abolish Ofcom before GE 2010, now they are giving Ofcom the BBC.
"The BBC Trust will be axed and its powers handed to the communications regulator Ofcom, Westminster sources have revealed. For the first time in the broadcaster’s nearly century-long history, it will be governed by an external body, as part of the renegotiation of the BBC Charter. The move is expected to be signalled in a Green Paper that will formally trigger Charter renewal negotiations within weeks. It comes after John Whittingdale, the new Culture Secretary, insisted that he does not have a “vendetta” against the corporation but warned that it needed a “very robust system in place” to deal with issues of impartiality"
PT According to the last ST yougov Labour leadership poll Burnham led in the north on 17%, Cooper was on 10%, Corbyn 8%, Kendall 4%. Ironically in that poll Burnham was also most popular in the south on 10%, with Cooper on 5%, Kendall and Corbyn on 4%, in London Cooper led on 8%, with Burnham on 6%, Corbyn on 5%, Kendall on 4% and in the Midlands and Wales Cooper just led on 8% with Burnham on 7%, Kendall on 5%, Corbyn on 3%. In Scotland Cooper was on 10%, Burnham 9%, Corbyn 8%, Kendall 4% https://yougov.co.uk/publicopinion/archive/?page=3
Almost always, the same things that help Labour or the Conservative in northern marginals, help Labour or the Conservatives in southern marginals.
Agreed. Miliband's left wing manifesto went down a storm in Burnham's Leigh (increasing his majority to over 31%) but actually saw a swing against Labour in many North West marginals.
"The BBC Trust will be axed and its powers handed to the communications regulator Ofcom, Westminster sources have revealed. For the first time in the broadcaster’s nearly century-long history, it will be governed by an external body, as part of the renegotiation of the BBC Charter. The move is expected to be signalled in a Green Paper that will formally trigger Charter renewal negotiations within weeks. It comes after John Whittingdale, the new Culture Secretary, insisted that he does not have a “vendetta” against the corporation but warned that it needed a “very robust system in place” to deal with issues of impartiality"
Not before time!
LOL. They were going to abolish Ofcom before GE 2010, now they are giving Ofcom the BBC.
What's the LOL for? Abolishing something or giving the same thing a new proper role which justifies its continued existence seem like the only two sensible alternatives to choose between.
PT According to the last ST yougov Labour leadership poll Burnham led in the north on 17%, Cooper was on 10%, Corbyn 8%, Kendall 4%. Ironically in that poll Burnham was also most popular in the south on 10%, with Cooper on 5%, Kendall and Corbyn on 4%, in London Cooper led on 8%, with Burnham on 6%, Corbyn on 5%, Kendall on 4% and in the Midlands and Wales Cooper just led on 8% with Burnham on 7%, Kendall on 5%, Corbyn on 3%. In Scotland Cooper was on 10%, Burnham 9%, Corbyn 8%, Kendall 4% https://yougov.co.uk/publicopinion/archive/?page=3
The North is not homogenous. If it was there'd be no Tory seats, let alone seat like mine that swung TO the Tories this year. Leigh saw Labour's majority increased by 4% this year while Warrington South as an example saw the Conservatives majority increased by 2%. Appealing to one part of the North West can upset another part of the North West and vice-versa.
nigel4england He is not shouting her down at all, she is just performing the worst of the 3 politicians on the panel, Burnham did mention the importance of rewarding companies which pay a living wage through the tax system
Burnham is a real lightweight, if he is all Labour have to offer then you are looking at the end of them.
He did sound a bit lightweight on the Greece question admittedly, but I thought he was great on the tax credits and migrant crisis, sounded like he knew his stuff and actually showed some bloody passion on tax credits (unusual for Labour these days).
He was a bit better on the migrant crisis.
You are a big fan of tax credits, aren't you? Honest question, do you not think it would be better to reduce the size of the state, grow the private sector and observe natural wage growth than top up the salaries of the low paid with an inefficient tax system...
I'd love it if some of these greedy mega-corporations like McDonald's, raking in millions in profits, were actually made to pay their employees decently and thus make the need for tax credits redundant. Unfortunately, I have no faith in the Tories to have the guts to make them do that, so in the absence of that tax credits definitley should stay.
I agree, Tesco's even despite their recent troubles make huge profits yet rely on the taxpayer to subsidies wages.
No they don't. Tesco's pay their wages they pay which I'm sure are at or above minimum wage. There is no automatic subsidy to top up anyone's wages.
Yes they do. Tried to find chart previously on PB which I believe showed that the UK tax payer subsidises the wages of Tesco's staff to the region of £55 million. Perhaps some one else could find it or correct me?
Comments
FPT neither UK nor euro area but still EU. Apparently the Danish People's Party did worse overall in urban areas, both in terms of their pre- and post-election support, as well as getting smaller (positive) swings in urban areas. However, the increase in rural support was enough to leave them the largest pro-government party. And will Greenland be the next Scotland? (See https://welections.wordpress.com/2015/06/25/guest-post-denmark-2015/)
Seriously (and with apologies to David and to Miliband mère), I wouldn't have wanted to be the child of any frontline politician, let alone the PM. Kid of a backbencher might not have been so deleterious, but it would help if it were for a London (or nearby) constituency. Otherwise having a parent to-ing and fro-ing between homes is still quite disruptive, even if not as totally life consuming.
(Incidentally I regard this as being one of the perils of the increasing youth of our leaders. There are good folk out there who are put off getting into politics, particularly participating at the highest level, because of the impact on family life. And those who wait til the kids have flown the nest, or are at least a bit more independent, are generally regarded as "past it". On the flip side, I'm not entirely sure I want people in power who are prepared to make so many sacrifices in their personal life, they seem to want it too much! Perhaps part of the solution might be having families younger - been a long time since early 20s was the norm among the middle classes - but social trends are against it.)
Ed Miliband future Foreign Secretary or Work & Pensions Secretary.
You read it here first.
Oooh, I might be able to make a thread out of that
Like Tottenham.
Cheers for this, Mr. Hayfield.
http://www.crosenstiel.webspace.virginmedia.com/camelect/index.htm
http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2015/06/if-osborne-cuts-tax-rates-for-the-rich-he-must-also-curb-their-tax-privileges.html
" Holyrood 2016 could lead to the virtual extinction of the mainstream parties in Scotland. I think in 2016 Holyrood the Greens could come second after the SNP. Anyway I drafted this which some of you will find /interesting/prophetic/deluded - at the end of the day we're a betting site: - enjoy!! :
'Don’t waste your SNP regional vote in 2016 – recycle it to the Greens
Based on current polling the SNP would win around 90% of the constituency seats. Therefore, unless the SNP are expected to get around 55-60% of the regional vote in a region, in which case D’Hondt would work in their favour, most of the SNP regional votes are going to be wasted. Therefore, I would expect SNP tactical voting on a grand scale with the Greens being the major beneficiary of these votes. The Greens could end up snapping at SLAB’s heels for second place.
Running the recent YouGov Scotland poll constituency and regional vote figures through the Scotland Votes calculator the results were as follows:
-SNP 67 seats (65 constituency + 2 regional)
-Labour 34 seats (5 constituency + 29 regional)
-Conservatives 17 seats (1 constituency + 16 regional)
-LibDems 2 seats (2 constituency + 0 regional)
-Greens 8 seats (0 constituency + 8 regional)
-Independents 1 seat (0 constituency + 1 regional)
Source: http://www.scotlandvotes.com/holyrood
You will note that with a regional vote of 42% the SNP only get two regional seats in comparison to the Greens getting 8 seats on 8%. However if a 5% of the SNP supporters were to vote tactically for the Greens in the regional ballot (taking SNP down to 37% and the Greens to 13%) the results would be as follows:
-SNP 66 seats (65 constituency + 1 regional)
-Labour 33 seats (5 constituency + 28 regional)
-Conservatives 15 seats (1 constituency + 14 regional)
-LibDems 2 seats (2 constituency + 0 regional)
-Greens 13 seats (0 constituency + 13 regional)
-Independents 1 seat (0 constituency + 1 regional)
If 10% vote tactically for the Greens the results would be:
-SNP 65 seats (65 constituency + 0 regional)
-Labour 29 seats (5 constituency + 24 regional)
-Conservatives 14 seats (1 constituency + 13 regional)
-LibDems 2 seats (2 constituency + 0 regional)
-Greens 19 seats (0 constituency + 19 regional)
-Independents 1 seat (0 constituency + 1 regional)
If 15% vote tactically for the Greens the result would be:
-SNP 65 seats (65 constituency + 0 regional)
-Labour 26 seats (5 constituency + 21 regional)
-Conservatives 14 seats (1 constituency + 13 regional)
-LibDems 2 seats (2 constituency + 0 regional)
-Greens 22 seats (0 constituency + 22 regional)
-Independents 1 seat (0 constituency + 1 regional)
"All political lives, unless they are cut off in midstream at a happy juncture, end in failure, because that is the nature of politics and of human affairs. "
Or did the basic idea predate him? I can't think of an earlier phrase or quotation to quite the same effect.
This is going to be THE budget of this Parliament. There is going to be major cuts, hopefully a real and substantial increase in the NWM. There will hopefully be some grandstanding announcements on export promotion as well. The idea of all this being overshadowed by a cut in the HRT is such bad politics. Osborne almost never makes the same mistake twice and he has already made this one.
I am glad the restoration of the personal allowance is popular, it is the 61% rate that I pay!
'@GreenwichLabour nominate @YvetteForLabour with @Corbyn4Leader in 2nd. Burnham was 3rd and Kendall 4th.
Leak one thing and then actually do something that isn't as bad, so you look great.
Politics is less like Middle Management and more like the Rex Nemorensis - the King-Priest of the Grove, whose station would only last until he is killed by his successor in trial by combat. A lucky one may defeat many challengers, of course, but one at last must succeed unless some other fatal intervention strikes first.
DavidL I agree better to wait until a surplus
Cutting it again could (should) do the same
The "if true" part is a very big "if". I'm not even convinced by the 50% to 45% supposed "increase". In principle it is plausible. I'd be astonished if the revenue-maximising is very far north of 50%. But the data available is very limited - it doesn't let you do a long-term comparison. The 50% rate was in place for a very brief period, and by shifting income between years there would have been attempts to bring income forward to avoid it at the beginning, and then to defer income to avoid it at the end. So I'm not convinced we ever got a clear picture of what the 50% rate would have brought in if left in place.
Peter Diamond and Emmanuel Saez are probably the go-to economists on this sort of thing, though they're writing in an American context. From memory they are thinking 50% to 70% and probably on the higher end of that range, but comparisons are not straightforward because of the different tax systems (e.g. Brits have NI), income distributions, and income elasticities.
The most serious (i.e. not partisan hackery) attempt I've seen at estimating these things is by the blogger Paul Barden. Scott probably wouldn't agree much. But then Barden isn't a professional economist (he is/was an investment banking quant guy) and I don't know what academic consensus in the UK is.
Pity they've done it backwards.
Burnham will be a gift for the Tories.
1) Burnham
2) Corbyn
3) Cooper
4) Kendall
Kendall would give me sleepless nights, Cooper might make winning the Midlands marginals harder. Corbyn is articulate. Burnham only wins votes of the people who already vote for Labour in cities and the North.
You are a big fan of tax credits, aren't you? Honest question, do you not think it would be better to reduce the size of the state, grow the private sector and observe natural wage growth than top up the salaries of the low paid with an inefficient tax system...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-leadership-andy-burnham-considered-the-contender-most-likely-to-improve-partys-general-election-chances-10340208.html
I'm using the same echo chamber that I used to work out that no-one in the South would vote for EdM, and indeed that waverers would vote Tory because of EdM; even fewer like Burnham.
ZHC are not a real issue. Get over them, Labour.
Never in a normal balanced audience would you get that. You wouldnt even get that in an audience of labour only voters. You would get booed out of the hall for suggesting that it was acceptable someone on benefits got more than 20k.
Tonight, The Daily Telegraph reports:
"The BBC Trust will be axed and its powers handed to the communications regulator Ofcom, Westminster sources have revealed.
For the first time in the broadcaster’s nearly century-long history, it will be governed by an external body, as part of the renegotiation of the BBC Charter.
The move is expected to be signalled in a Green Paper that will formally trigger Charter renewal negotiations within weeks.
It comes after John Whittingdale, the new Culture Secretary, insisted that he does not have a “vendetta” against the corporation but warned that it needed a “very robust system in place” to deal with issues of impartiality"
Not before time!
That's like assuming people who live in Manchester must love Liverpool Football Club, while Liverpudlians must love Manchester United because they're nearby to each other.
https://yougov.co.uk/publicopinion/archive/?page=3
LAB 37.3% (+5.6)
LDEM 35.2% (-12.7)
GRN 21.0% (+15.1)
CON 4.5% (+0.1)
UKIP 2.1% (-3.0)
via @britainelects
Labour Gain from LD - go Hattie!
Abolishing something or giving the same thing a new proper role which justifies its continued existence seem like the only two sensible alternatives to choose between.