Bugger. I did wonder whether the "Corbyngasm" last week would alert Labour people to the danger. Then again, this interminable process has weeks left to run so perhaps it has come at a good time, we don't want him to peak too soon.
Think I'm going to hold my nose, sign up to the £3 Labour thing and do my bit. The only other time I affiliated myself to a party was the Tory society at university (in 1994 too!) and the year's membership of that was I think £3 as well. Never thought I'd ever "join" the Labour Party though!
If Andy Burnham abstains from the vote, as planned, that is toxic for him.
He still has a great deal of the centre left who see him as the credible centre left candidate, but I think if he does not oppose this those supporters will think they may as well vote corbyn to show their dissatisfaction.
I wouldn't be so sure the peak corbyn has passed.
Welcome to pb, Mr Miaow. It's good to see that the Labour leadership contest has attracted quite a few new commenters.
The Tories are in a jolly good mood indeed as they head into the summer recess, not just because they are in government, but also because Labour is doing everything that they hoped it would to make it easier for them to pass controversial legislation and occupy the centre ground.
One jubilant MP jokes that ‘we could strap babies to foxes and then tie them up with badgers, shoot them, and Labour wouldn’t know how to oppose it.'
Well, looks like @SouthamObserver has his evidence for Conservative hubris. Not that he needed this of course: PB commentators, have spent the last couple of weeks foretelling how the next five years will pan out. For all the talk of Labour doing everything to make it easier for the Conservatives to pass controversial legislation, why hasn't there been any progress on a 'British Bill of Rights', Fox Hunting free vote, and EVEL? @Morris_Dancer is right. The reason why the Tories have so far not really had any effective opposition, is for an obvious reason: leadership contests have been underway. I don't know how on earth anyone expects a leaderless Labour party, to be an organised, effective opposition. Right now, Labour is battling with itself as what it exactly stands for, and what on earth it wants to do. As has been said on here: right now, predicting what direction Labour will exactly go in right now, is fruitless, and will remain fruitless, no matter how many times commentators on here analyse the leadership contest and conclude Labour is 'doomed' is everyday. Until Labour actually elects a leader, we won't know exactly what approach Labour will adopt.
Obviously, in the case of a Corbyn election we know exactly what we'd get, but it wouldn't last for long. In the event of a Burnham or Cooper election, it's not obvious what direction Labour would go in. Both candidates have been as vague, as vague can be, and whether it's because their genuinely out of ideas, or looking to collect the most amount of preference votes remains to be seen.
As for Tory polices leading to happier Britain, I supposed if you're not one of the ghastly low-paid people, or a public sector worker (ghastly), or one of the many young people in the country, or a renter etc. then I guess it may apply to you. But certainly, Conservative polices will be making certain groups happier, as opposed to the country as whole. I doubt many families will be happy, at finding that their working and child tax credits have been withdrawn.
On a SDP split - I don't see it. I don't even think there's enough active Blairites right now to make such a venture worthwhile, and I can't see young, ambitious MPs such as Umunna willingly to take such a risk either. The SDP, as far as I remember reading was setup by a moderate MPs, who were apart of the establishment/old guard of the Labour party - Shirley Williams, David Steel etc. Today, much of the Blairite Old Guard are pretty much gone, having retired from frontline politics. I think the likes of Hunt, Umunna, will stay within Labour.
There appears to be this idea that Labour, have suddenly 'rejected' New Labour. But I don't think activists, have ever been fans of New Labour necessarily. What I find most odd, is that on PB there is idea that Labour activists are uniquely this militant, ideological sort of people, and Conservative activists are somehow the complete opposite of this. You'd never guess this was the same activist base, that thought IDS was a good idea, or that the Tory party in general spent 13 years in opposition, with its only problems of being too to the right of British politics. Labour activists 'tolerated' New Labour, because at some point they realised that it's far better to be in government - and a position to help change the lives of people, then to carper in ideological purity in opposition. Ideological purity is an impossible state for not just Labour, but any political party, because most people aren't straight laced ideologues.
They have different attitudes to things, depending on the subject/situation, and it can vary left or right. As @Danny565 has rightly said, Labour activists are more than happy to sign up to a modernising agenda, when they have a leader who will deliver them a majority. They voted for Tony Blair, and David Miliband. The rejection of Kendall, is in part due to a lack of belief that she has the leadership skills to deliver Labour a majority in 2020. Being a successful political leader is more than just simply giving lip-service to things Conservative loyalists agree with - Jim Murphy, more than anyone proved that this May. It also requires having actual leadership skills, being able to carry a party with you, and having good political acumen. Given that Kendall appears to lack strategic skills, now in the leadership contest, I doubt that bodes well for her in the future.
The Tories are in a jolly good mood indeed as they head into the summer recess, not just because they are in government, but also because Labour is doing everything that they hoped it would to make it easier for them to pass controversial legislation and occupy the centre ground.
One jubilant MP jokes that ‘we could strap babies to foxes and then tie them up with badgers, shoot them, and Labour wouldn’t know how to oppose it.'
Well, looks like @SouthamObserver has his evidence for Conservative hubris. Not that he needed this of courseFor all the talk of Labour doing everything to make it easier for the Conservatives to pass controversial legislation, why hasn't there been any progress on a 'British Bill of Rights', Fox Hunting free vote, and EVEL? @Morris_Dancer is right. The reason why the Tories have so far not really had any effective opposition, is for an obvious reason: leadership contests have been underway. I don't know how on earth anyone expects a leaderless Labour party, to be an organised, effective opposition. Right now, Labour is battling with itself as what it exactly stands for, and what on earth it wants to do. As has been said on here: right now, predicting what direction Labour will exactly go in right now, is fruitless, and will remain fruitless, no matter how many times commentators on here analyse the leadership contest and conclude Labour is 'doomed' is everyday. Until Labour actually elects a leader, we won't know exactly what approach Labour will adopt.
Obviously, in the case of a Corbyn election we know exactly what we'd get, but it wouldn't last for long. In the event of a Burnham or Cooper election, it's not obvious what direction Labour would go in. Both candidates have been as vague, as vague can be, and whether it's because their genuinely out of ideas, or looking to collect the most amount of preference votes remains to be seen.
As for Tory polices leading to happier Britain, I supposed if you're not one of the ghastly low-paid people, or a public sector worker (ghastly), or one of the many young people in the country, or a renter etc. then I guess it may apply to you. But certainly, Conservative polices will be making certain groups happier, as opposed to the country as whole. I doubt many families will be happy, at finding that their working and child tax credits have been withdrawn.
Regarding passing its manifesto, Tory MPs are their own worst enemy. Plenty know only a handful of them can stop all sorts of legislation, and they plan to use it.
Electorally, I suspect the cuts to tax credits will have a similar effect to those to child benefit and housing benefit in the last parliament.
@The_Apocalypse Two very interesting posts (or one split post).
Supposing that Labour had already elected the leader and she was a charismatic person, bright and fresh, and "voter attractive".
Imagine that Corbyn, Cooper, Burnham and Kendall were not running as leader, but instead presenting ideas & policies to the new leader for her adoption. The new leader couldn't pick'n'mix, but had to choose a complete slate of policies, i.e. all-Corbyn, or all-Cooper etc.
Whose set of policies would you want the new leader to adopt?
Re the SLAB leadership race - only Ladbrokes taking bets - Kezia 1/50 and Ken 12/1. Kezia clearly the party machine favourite, however as its now 1 member 1 vote, the vote could easily end up much closer than the odds suggest. SLAB still being cagey around membership numbers - 15,500 has been circulating as the current figure. Interestingly in 2011 leadership election Ken won over 50% of the membership vote in the first round.
Glad Mike's op went well - here's to a speedy full recuperation.
To reply to Disraeli and indirectly to Apocalypse: essentially I want as much social democracy as the electorate will accept. So I'd probably go for a Corbyn programme if we had the sort of brilliant leader you describe to persuade people to support it. I'm supporting Cooper as the most credible left of centre candidate, but I'd be happier if she had a clear portrayal of the sort of Britain that she'd like to lead us towards - as Jeremy does, which tempted me to give him my first preference, even though I've decided against in the end.
I'm just one voter, but I think that's fairly typical of members.
(And hello from Sausalito, under clear skies with a sea breeze.)
@Casino_Royale, I suppose it's a matter of how many people will be affected. Housing Benefit changes affected around half a million people, but the IFS states that the budget could will effect up to 13m families.
@Disraeli A very good question. Right now I'm not even sure what Burnham/Cooper would exactly do, overall in terms of policy/ideas, which is why I couldn't pick them. I wouldn't pick what Corbyn is offering either. So, I'd probably end up with some ideas Kendall's offered, incidentally.
EDIT: Well, council houses etc. I like in terms of Corbyn, so its' not strictly true I reject all of his ideas.
The party’s ruling fortysomethings — Yvette Cooper, Andy Burnham, Liz Kendall — seem to be friends of the EU without quite knowing why. When they profess their commitment to the cause, they do it with the studied enthusiasm of a man smiling across the dinner table at a wife he was bounced into marrying by overzealous parents. Press them and they will say something about “internationalism”, an abstraction that vies with “progressive” and “social justice” for zero-content vapidity.
The best I could get on Corbyn was 80/1 with Hills - as ever I was only able to place £6.05 on these odds after somebody, I can't recollect who, tipped him.
Glad Mike's op went well - here's to a speedy full recuperation.
To reply to Disraeli and indirectly to Apocalypse: essentially I want as much social democracy as the electorate will accept. So I'd probably go for a Corbyn programme if we had the sort of brilliant leader you describe to persuade people to support it. I'm supporting Cooper as the most credible left of centre candidate, but I'd be happier if she had a clear portrayal of the sort of Britain that she'd like to lead us towards - as Jeremy does, which tempted me to give him my first preference, even though I've decided against in the end.
I'm just one voter, but I think that's fairly typical of members.
(And hello from Sausalito, under clear skies with a sea breeze.)
That's quite an interesting response! The trouble is, even with a brilliant leader, I think the electorate has its limits and wouldn't support a Corbyn programme. I think on certain issues - re-nationalisation of railways, council houses, his ideas would get support, but on others - e.g. nuclear deterrent, immigration - would go down like a led ballon. It's the reverse way as well: I don't think any leader from the Right could convince the electorate to say, privatise the NHS. I am also supporting Cooper btw, I think she's the only one voters could imagine as a future PM, and who wouldn't go rushing to either oppose or support ideas too quickly.
If Andy Burnham abstains from the vote, as planned, that is toxic for him.
He still has a great deal of the centre left who see him as the credible centre left candidate, but I think if he does not oppose this those supporters will think they may as well vote corbyn to show their dissatisfaction.
I wouldn't be so sure the peak corbyn has passed.
Welcome to pb, Mr Miaow. It's good to see that the Labour leadership contest has attracted quite a few new commenters.
Many thanks
I've been following some of the postings here, been some good insights.
Me? I backed £100 on Jeremy at 250/1 so have a very large pot to play about with. Covered my position at "peak corbyn" so every outcome is clear of loss for me.
Still sitting on large profit for Corbyn which I want to partly cash out at some point, but I am sitting with interest at this welfare bill, it'll be interesting to see how the factions in labour move now.
Not long after he announced his candidacy I got it on Betfair Exchange. I placed it in mind that he might just make the ballot but didn't entertain he would win, just that I could cash out with the large swing.
I also got Chuka on the morning of election at 6/1 but managed to cash out before he pulled out. So got a tidy profit there which allowed me to speculate on Corbyn.
The party’s ruling fortysomethings — Yvette Cooper, Andy Burnham, Liz Kendall — seem to be friends of the EU without quite knowing why. When they profess their commitment to the cause, they do it with the studied enthusiasm of a man smiling across the dinner table at a wife he was bounced into marrying by overzealous parents. Press them and they will say something about “internationalism”, an abstraction that vies with “progressive” and “social justice” for zero-content vapidity.
They usually say something about 3 million jobs, preventing World War 3 or how the NHS will collapse if we are not a member of the EU.
I would bet they could not explain why they believe such things.
The best I could get on Corbyn was 80/1 with Hills - as ever I was only able to place £6.05 on these odds after somebody, I can't recollect who, tipped him.
Look out for a renewed Corbyn surge after he's set himself apart from the other candidates by being the only one to actually oppose the Tory welfare bill.
Harman has, inadvertently I'm sure, done him a huge favour: now he can be the only candidate to actually fight the Tories all the way through the summer.
@NickPalmer "...essentially I want as much social democracy as the electorate will accept." Exactly! Better, from your point of view, to be in power and be able to do something, than powerless in opposition but with ideological purity intact.
@The_Apocalypse I had a bet with myself that you'd reply as you did!
As a centrist, I support a lot of what Kendall says (though not all of it by any means), but I agree with other posters that she is not currently the best leader.
Putting partisanship to one side, this is a really tough choice for Labour supporters. Hopefully the candidates will start to clarify what they stand for a little bit in the next few weeks. I won't hold my breath though. They are politicians after all!
Well, looks like @SouthamObserver has his evidence for Conservative hubris. Not that he needed this of course: PB commentators, have spent the last couple of weeks foretelling how the next five years will pan out.
From a random backbencher and from anonymous commentators on a website. No one who matters. I very much doubt that May or Osborne or Cameron is thinking hubristically - as you can see from Osborne's moves in recent weeks.
For all the talk of Labour doing everything to make it easier for the Conservatives to pass controversial legislation, why hasn't there been any progress on a 'British Bill of Rights', Fox Hunting free vote, and EVEL?
There has been: the Bill of rights is (I think) out for consultation; EVEL there have been proposals made. Fox hunting was floated as a vote and then withdrawn because they didn't think they could win it (as the SNP decided to go back on their previously stated positions of principle). But that's not a major issue so why worry about it.
As for Tory polices leading to happier Britain, I supposed if you're not one of the ghastly low-paid people, or a public sector worker (ghastly), or one of the many young people in the country, or a renter etc. then I guess it may apply to you.
You're projecting here. Doesn't characterise the views of any Tories I know. And I make it my business to understand the views of the grassroots Tories, both rural and urban.
But certainly, Conservative polices will be making certain groups happier, as opposed to the country as whole. I doubt many families will be happy, at finding that their working and child tax credits have been withdrawn.
Unfortunately, if the government is running a structural deficit, then that needs to be closed. Taxes have been increased pretty significantly since 2010. But if the government decided to reduce government spending (as was in their manifesto) then by definition it is the current beneficiaries of government spending that will "lose out". But that is why we elect governments: to adjudicate between competing demands for limited resources.
The best I could get on Corbyn was 80/1 with Hills - as ever I was only able to place £6.05 on these odds after somebody, I can't recollect who, tipped him.
The best I could get on Corbyn was 80/1 with Hills - as ever I was only able to place £6.05 on these odds after somebody, I can't recollect who, tipped him.
Look out for a renewed Corbyn surge after he's set himself apart from the other candidates by being the only one to actually oppose the Tory welfare bill.
Harman has, inadvertently I'm sure, done him a huge favour: now he can be the only candidate to actually fight the Tories all the way through the summer.
I am not sure how many Tory members are in the chamber tonight but if any more than 12 aren't present to vote, Labour is screwed as with LD, SNP, Plaid and DUP all coming together to vote against Labour could have come close to blocking it. I know they wouldn't have but the principal remains there.
I think on certain issues - re-nationalisation of railways, council houses, his ideas would get support, but on others - e.g. nuclear deterrent, immigration - would go down like a led ballon.
Or put another way... Corbyn's stairway to heaven would go down like a Led Zeppelin!
Peak Corbyn? I don't know, but Corbyn is starting to generate resistance though it's very feeble compared to the resistance inside Labour against Kendall.
I think the betting odds are about right, at least in the order of the candidates.
As I said in the past, Corbyn is all about second preferences. Corbyn will have more votes than Kendall, so the leading candidates will drift towards Corbyn's position to try to maximize their second preferences. Long story short: Corbyn is kingmaker, Kendall is an also-ran.
a) Corbyn really wants to be leader; b) That if he becomes leader, he would be as disastrous as many think.
I think some Conservative supporters on here are making a big mistake in treating his threat so lightly. There is a widespread view (rightly or wrongly) that the 'system' has mucked people about for the last seven years without being punished. Whilst he would not be an inspiring orator, if he can get a team behind him that could energise those feelings and point out a new direction for the country then he would be a real threat.
It would be utter rubbish, but large chunks of the populace who are fed up might buy it.
Having said that there are big questions: his ability to take the party with him being perhaps the largest.
If Miliband had created a consistent, coherent vision - as opposed to his scattergun approach to filling his bank sheet of paper - then he might have been able to do much better.
I hope he wins. Not because he will obviously fail - I'm not sure he will - but because he will give a voice to many people who have been ignored since the 1980s.
Glad Mike's op went well - here's to a speedy full recuperation.
To reply to Disraeli and indirectly to Apocalypse: essentially I want as much social democracy as the electorate will accept. So I'd probably go for a Corbyn programme if we had the sort of brilliant leader you describe to persuade people to support it. I'm supporting Cooper as the most credible left of centre candidate, but I'd be happier if she had a clear portrayal of the sort of Britain that she'd like to lead us towards - as Jeremy does, which tempted me to give him my first preference, even though I've decided against in the end.
I'm just one voter, but I think that's fairly typical of members.
(And hello from Sausalito, under clear skies with a sea breeze.)
That's quite an interesting response! The trouble is, even with a brilliant leader, I think the electorate has its limits and wouldn't support a Corbyn programme. I think on certain issues - re-nationalisation of railways, council houses, his ideas would get support, but on others - e.g. nuclear deterrent, immigration - would go down like a led ballon. It's the reverse way as well: I don't think any leader from the Right could convince the electorate to say, privatise the NHS. I am also supporting Cooper btw, I think she's the only one voters could imagine as a future PM, and who wouldn't go rushing to either oppose or support ideas too quickly.
Immigration makes perfect sense to be the one vote loser the left put forward. The current population of the UK hates it, but it changes the population to be a more left wing one.
I was thinking more of hubris in regard to the Tory party generally (MPs/activists/members) as opposed to just the hierarchy.
The British Bill of Rights, as far as I was aware was 'put out of consultation' after it was clear that the Bill wasn't going to pass through the HoCs. So rather than there being progress, that one has actually gone backwards. I mentioned Fox Hunting because it matches the 'controversial' definition, in the Spectator link.
In reference to the Tories you know: do you mean that Tory voters believe that polices won't make Britain as a whole happy, or that the polices are of benefit to groups such as the low-paid, the young, renters etc.
On the structural deficit, I understand the need for cuts - but I don't like how some groups (e.g pensioners) are completely protected, whereas other groups, such as the low-paid are deemed fair game. If cuts affected all groups, as opposed to just specific groups, I wouldn't be so opposed.
@Casino_Royale, I suppose it's a matter of how many people will be affected. Housing Benefit changes affected around half a million people, but the IFS states that the budget could will effect up to 13m families.
@Disraeli A very good question. Right now I'm not even sure what Burnham/Cooper would exactly do, overall in terms of policy/ideas, which is why I couldn't pick them. I wouldn't pick what Corbyn is offering either. So, I'd probably end up with some ideas Kendall's offered, incidentally.
EDIT: Well, council houses etc. I like in terms of Corbyn, so its' not strictly true I reject all of his ideas.
I doubt it will be anything like that number and it depends to what degree they're affected of course. Plenty were hit by the changes to child benefit.
People would rather the money was spent on education, health, pensions and (probably) defence than continue Brown's bloated tax credit empire.
No Conservative wants - or enjoys - seeing people suffer in poverty. The best route out of poverty is a well-paid job, and that requires a strong economy and higher wages.
a) Corbyn really wants to be leader; b) That if he becomes leader, he would be as disastrous as many think.
I think some Conservative supporters on here are making a big mistake in treating his threat so lightly. There is a widespread view (rightly or wrongly) that the 'system' has mucked people about for the last seven years without being punished. Whilst he would not be an inspiring orator, if he can get a team behind him that could energise those feelings and point out a new direction for the country then he would be a real threat.
It would be utter rubbish, but large chunks of the populace who are fed up might buy it.
Having said that there are big questions: his ability to take the party with him being perhaps the largest.
If Miliband had created a consistent, coherent vision - as opposed to his scattergun approach to filling his bank sheet of paper - then he might have been able to do much better.
I hope he wins. Not because he will obviously fail - I'm not sure he will - but because he will give a voice to many people who have been ignored since the 1980s.
Not many people are yet fed up. This is no 1997.
And all those people who have been ignored since the 1980's, are ignored because of two things: 1. They usually live in safe seats. 2. The poor and the young don't vote as much as the rich and the old.
Of course if things go the way of the Titanic for the country, then that would change as the number of the poor and people who are fed up would simply increase.
Immigration makes perfect sense to be the one vote loser the left put forward. The current population of the UK hates it, but it changes the population to be a more left wing one.
Not necessarily - many immigrants are incredibly likely to have social conservative views/values.
Glad Mike's op went well - here's to a speedy full recuperation.
To reply to Disraeli and indirectly to Apocalypse: essentially I want as much social democracy as the electorate will accept. So I'd probably go for a Corbyn programme if we had the sort of brilliant leader you describe to persuade people to support it. I'm supporting Cooper as the most credible left of centre candidate, but I'd be happier if she had a clear portrayal of the sort of Britain that she'd like to lead us towards - as Jeremy does, which tempted me to give him my first preference, even though I've decided against in the end.
I'm just one voter, but I think that's fairly typical of members.
(And hello from Sausalito, under clear skies with a sea breeze.)
That's quite an interesting response! The trouble is, even with a brilliant leader, I think the electorate has its limits and wouldn't support a Corbyn programme. I think on certain issues - re-nationalisation of railways, council houses, his ideas would get support, but on others - e.g. nuclear deterrent, immigration - would go down like a led ballon. It's the reverse way as well: I don't think any leader from the Right could convince the electorate to say, privatise the NHS. I am also supporting Cooper btw, I think she's the only one voters could imagine as a future PM, and who wouldn't go rushing to either oppose or support ideas too quickly.
Nick is a full-blooded socialist, masked by his politeness and general good-nature, and only ameliorated by his pragmatism.
Whilst that's enough for me to like him, I'd never vote for him.
I think on certain issues - re-nationalisation of railways, council houses, his ideas would get support, but on others - e.g. nuclear deterrent, immigration - would go down like a led ballon.
Or put another way... Corbyn's stairway to heaven would go down like a Led Zeppelin!
I don't too much about Led Zeppelin, I have to say. I know one of their songs (Whole Lotta of Love).
Glad Mike's op went well - here's to a speedy full recuperation.
To reply to Disraeli and indirectly to Apocalypse: essentially I want as much social democracy as the electorate will accept. So I'd probably go for a Corbyn programme if we had the sort of brilliant leader you describe to persuade people to support it. I'm supporting Cooper as the most credible left of centre candidate, but I'd be happier if she had a clear portrayal of the sort of Britain that she'd like to lead us towards - as Jeremy does, which tempted me to give him my first preference, even though I've decided against in the end.
I'm just one voter, but I think that's fairly typical of members.
(And hello from Sausalito, under clear skies with a sea breeze.)
That's quite an interesting response! The trouble is, even with a brilliant leader, I think the electorate has its limits and wouldn't support a Corbyn programme. I think on certain issues - re-nationalisation of railways, council houses, his ideas would get support, but on others - e.g. nuclear deterrent, immigration - would go down like a led ballon. It's the reverse way as well: I don't think any leader from the Right could convince the electorate to say, privatise the NHS. I am also supporting Cooper btw, I think she's the only one voters could imagine as a future PM, and who wouldn't go rushing to either oppose or support ideas too quickly.
Nick is a full-blooded socialist, masked by his politeness and general good-nature, and only ameliorated by his pragmatism.
Whilst that's enough for me to like him, I'd never vote for him.
I guess that it's like Abbott and Portillo, both (seemingly) good friends, but they'd never vote for one another! :-D
I was thinking more of hubris in regard to the Tory party generally (MPs/activists/members) as opposed to just the hierarchy.
The British Bill of Rights, as far as I was aware was 'put out of consultation' after it was clear that the Bill wasn't going to pass through the HoCs. So rather than there being progress, that one has actually gone backwards. I mentioned Fox Hunting because it matches the 'controversial' definition, in the Spectator link.
In reference to the Tories you know: do you mean that Tory voters believe that polices won't make Britain as a whole happy, or that the polices are of benefit to groups such as the low-paid, the young, renters etc.
On the structural deficit, I understand the need for cuts - but I don't like how some groups (e.g pensioners) are completely protected, whereas other groups, such as the low-paid are deemed fair game. If cuts affected all groups, as opposed to just specific groups, I wouldn't be so opposed.
The problem the Tories have is that there are large numbers of their MPs who won't vote the whip. I personally think that's a good thing, but it does mean that looking at decisions to pull votes as some kind of failure is out-dated. If the government can't persuade Parliament of the merits of legislation then it shouldn't become law.
In reference to the Tories I know, I've never heard them refer to the low paid or public sector workers as ghastly. The fundamental issue, though, is that asset price inflation has got out of control and this is creating a fundamental structural imbalance: solving this (not easy) will do a lot to resolve the issues of young people, renters, etc.
My thoughts:
(1) annual property tax on all residential property to replace employment based taxes
(2) capital gains tax on all property disposals, but with roll-over relief to the extent that proceeds from the sale of a principal private residence are used to buy a new PPR
(3) Restricting the ability to use debt financing to provide a tax shield on rental income for BTL properties
(4) Policies to encourage new long-term investors into property (especially pension funding) possibly with a trade off to limit the rents in return
(5) Freeing up the planning system
And I agree with you on pensioners (although it's not accurate to say they are completely protected - don't forget the "granny tax" from 2012). But I'd look at rolling the winter fuel allowance and various other allowances into the basic state pension and making them taxable.
Immigration makes perfect sense to be the one vote loser the left put forward. The current population of the UK hates it, but it changes the population to be a more left wing one.
Not necessarily - many immigrants are incredibly likely to have social conservative views/values.
Yet they will still vote for left-wing parties in very large numbers, because their left wing economic views are prioritized. And the left can always subtly indicate they will not interfere too much on social issues in ethnic minority communities. Compare the willingness among those on the left to attack sexism in 'lad culture' or gender stereotyping in children's toys, with what they say about the Islamic veil, for instance.
@The_Apocalypse 'On the structural deficit, I understand the need for cuts - but I don't like how some groups (e.g pensioners) are completely projected, whereas other groups, such as the low-paid are deemed fair game. If cuts affected all groups, as opposed to just specific groups, I wouldn't be so opposed. '
I don't disagree - but would also argue that if the fiscal position is so difficult we should not be getting tax cuts at all. I took the same view throughout the last Parliament. It was all very well for the LibDems boasting about massively raising the Personal Allowance but doing so increased the need to slash public expenditure to obtain any given improvement in the Budget Deficit. Of course, such a policy was more progressive than cutting the standard rate but still brought no benefit at all to the really poor. It would have been much better to have effectively frozen Personal Allowances by simply adjusting them on a Rooker/Wise basis and imposed significantly smaller cuts in public spending.
@Charles Out of interest, what is the government doing to solve asset price inflation? On Tory MPs, well I suppose it depends on what perspective you're coming from. If you're looking from a objective POV, then yes if the government can't persuade Parliament of the merits of legislation then it shouldn't become law. However, I'm thinking more from the perspective of Conservatives, who (from what I can see) ideally want to implement a Conservative agenda. If they (because of a minority) can't do that, then it does seem to be something of a failure, particularly since many on the Right didn't appear to think British Bill of Rights, prior to going to 'consultation' didn't go far enough.
While I don't think Tory voters would actually say, or believe that the low-paid are ghastly, I do get a general sense of contempt for the public sector, and public sector workers, in the same way some on the Left have for the private sector. There appears to be this idea everyone in public sector is a waster, or a vested interest - and that if they oppose any government changes to health, or education it's because they are a 'vested interest' rather than having any genuine kind of concern.
On your ideas the first one, sounds like the American system, in which you declare all of your taxes at the end of the year. I'm not so sure that's preferable to the system we have now. I'm also not too keen on property taxes in general - I was not really a fan of the Mansion Tax. However, I like all of your other ideas.
@JEO I guess that's a good point on immigrants being left-wing economically, although I'm not convinced that for all on Left, there is a desire to make the country more 'left-wing' through immigration. I think for example, for someone like Corbyn - he genuinely thinks immigration is a good thing, as opposed to having a political agenda behind such a policy. One thing I do agree though, is that the Left needs to take more a stand in regard to social issues, which directly contradict the equality agenda in all communities, including ethnic minority communities. I suppose on the Islamic Veil, there's the argument that it's a choice to wear the veil, and so it's an argument over someone's freedom to choose. Something I was thinking of, was more FGM, forced marriages etc.
Peak Corbyn? I don't know, but Corbyn is starting to generate resistance though it's very feeble compared to the resistance inside Labour against Kendall.
I think the betting odds are about right, at least in the order of the candidates.
As I said in the past, Corbyn is all about second preferences. Corbyn will have more votes than Kendall, so the leading candidates will drift towards Corbyn's position to try to maximize their second preferences. Long story short: Corbyn is kingmaker, Kendall is an also-ran.
Yet, it is increasingly likely the final 2 will be Corbyn-Burnham, in which case Kendall's and Cooper's votes would be kingmaker, not Corbyn's
Just got back from hospital from my operation. All OK though I feel knackered and slightly odd.
Must be more odd hearing that Farron is LD leader. Best wishes from over here in the West.
If only LDs could wake up and find the last 5 seasons had been a bad dream and Ming Campbell was still leader. It would certainly give Pam a shock to see him come out of the shower. Good wishes to Mr Smithson. Hope his surgeon did not have too much of an eye on the Open.
@Casino_Royale, I suppose it's a matter of how many people will be affected. Housing Benefit changes affected around half a million people, but the IFS states that the budget could will effect up to 13m families.
@Disraeli A very good question. Right now I'm not even sure what Burnham/Cooper would exactly do, overall in terms of policy/ideas, which is why I couldn't pick them. I wouldn't pick what Corbyn is offering either. So, I'd probably end up with some ideas Kendall's offered, incidentally.
EDIT: Well, council houses etc. I like in terms of Corbyn, so its' not strictly true I reject all of his ideas.
I doubt it will be anything like that number and it depends to what degree they're affected of course. Plenty were hit by the changes to child benefit.
People would rather the money was spent on education, health, pensions and (probably) defence than continue Brown's bloated tax credit empire.
No Conservative wants - or enjoys - seeing people suffer in poverty. The best route out of poverty is a well-paid job, and that requires a strong economy and higher wages.
I think the CB changes affected about 1.2m families - I suppose we'll see if the IFS is right, but they are, that 13m families are affected, then that's a whole new ball game in comparison CB and HB changes.
I know that most people, want a reduction in the welfare state, but do most feel the lowest paid are getting too much benefits? Some recent polling was done, and *if* it's true will most support the tax credit reduction, but most also don't feel that groups such as the low-paid, and even the unemployed get too much in benefits. I agree that the best route out poverty is a well-paid job, and high wages - I doubt many, if any on the Left (well, I'll give you Owen Jones and Jack Monroe) seriously think benefits can offer a route out of poverty. What I think many did think, was that benefits could help alleviate the effects of poverty. The trouble is, for many who lose tax credits, there are unlikely to make-up the short-fall - at least according to the IFS, who claim that the living wage won't compensate for those tax credit reductions. I personally was hoping to see the LW come in much more sooner than 2020, by which date the tax credit changes will be well underway.
I don't think it's hugely likely given her attacks on Burnham and Cooper as well as Corbyn. But if Kendall does finish in 4th then that will pose some awkward discussions for the Blairite gang. It's not just awkward for her but for those young thrusting Shadow Ministers such as Umunna and Hunt who backed her so much. It could be something that's discussed before ballot papers get printed but I wouldn't bank on it. If Kendall did pull out then I think Yvette Cooper would be the main beneficiary. It would be odd for her to pull out without then backing someone else to win and there's no love lost between her and Burnham.
A possibly more pertinent question than the one I posed in passing earlier is whether there is a chance that Kendall might withdraw rather than suffer the ignominy of finishing last by a wide margin?
If so, how would that change the dynamic of the race?
Wrong way around, Cooper and Kendall have just had a bitter spat through proxies over Kendall's childlessness and Cooper's children and Kendall actually gets on quite well with Burnham
Glad Mike's op went well - here's to a speedy full recuperation.
To reply to Disraeli and indirectly to Apocalypse: essentially I want as much social democracy as the electorate will accept. So I'd probably go for a Corbyn programme if we had the sort of brilliant leader you describe to persuade people to support it. I'm supporting Cooper as the most credible left of centre candidate, but I'd be happier if she had a clear portrayal of the sort of Britain that she'd like to lead us towards - as Jeremy does, which tempted me to give him my first preference, even though I've decided against in the end.
I'm just one voter, but I think that's fairly typical of members.
(And hello from Sausalito, under clear skies with a sea breeze.)
That's quite an interesting response! The trouble is, even with a brilliant leader, I think the electorate has its limits and wouldn't support a Corbyn programme. I think on certain issues - re-nationalisation of railways, council houses, his ideas would get support, but on others - e.g. nuclear deterrent, immigration - would go down like a led ballon. It's the reverse way as well: I don't think any leader from the Right could convince the electorate to say, privatise the NHS. I am also supporting Cooper btw, I think she's the only one voters could imagine as a future PM, and who wouldn't go rushing to either oppose or support ideas too quickly.
Nick is a full-blooded socialist, masked by his politeness and general good-nature, and only ameliorated by his pragmatism.
Whilst that's enough for me to like him, I'd never vote for him.
I guess that it's like Abbott and Portillo, both (seemingly) good friends, but they'd never vote for one another! :-D
@The_Apocalypse 'On the structural deficit, I understand the need for cuts - but I don't like how some groups (e.g pensioners) are completely projected, whereas other groups, such as the low-paid are deemed fair game. If cuts affected all groups, as opposed to just specific groups, I wouldn't be so opposed. '
I don't disagree - but would also argue that if the fiscal position is so difficult we should not be getting tax cuts at all. I took the same view throughout the last Parliament. It was all very well for the LibDems boasting about massively raising the Personal Allowance but doing so increased the need to slash public expenditure to obtain any given improvement in the Budget Deficit. Of course, such a policy was more progressive than cutting the standard rate but still brought no benefit at all to the really poor. It would have been much better to have effectively frozen Personal Allowances by simply adjusting them on a Rooker/Wise basis and imposed significantly smaller cuts in public spending.
You are making a mistake thinking one thing is dependent on another. Low paid tax allowance increases were paid for (at least in part) by not uplifting the higher rate bands. Reducing the 50p band collected more taxes. The point is that Osborne and the LDs accepted that the tax changes would slow the reduction in the deficit.
Scotland Yard has come under fire today after placing an advert demanding that anyone wanting to join as a police officer be able to speak a second language.
The Metropolitan Police wants to bolster the number of officers able to speak and understand 14 languages which are widely used across London.
But the move has sparked criticism from a former officer and members of the public on Twitter.
@Casino_Royale, I suppose it's a matter of how many people will be affected. Housing Benefit changes affected around half a million people, but the IFS states that the budget could will effect up to 13m families.
@Disraeli A very good question. Right now I'm not even sure what Burnham/Cooper would exactly do, overall in terms of policy/ideas, which is why I couldn't pick them. I wouldn't pick what Corbyn is offering either. So, I'd probably end up with some ideas Kendall's offered, incidentally.
EDIT: Well, council houses etc. I like in terms of Corbyn, so its' not strictly true I reject all of his ideas.
I doubt it will be anything like that number and it depends to what degree they're affected of course. Plenty were hit by the changes to child benefit.
People would rather the money was spent on education, health, pensions and (probably) defence than continue Brown's bloated tax credit empire.
No Conservative wants - or enjoys - seeing people suffer in poverty. The best route out of poverty is a well-paid job, and that requires a strong economy and higher wages.
I wish the penultimate sentence was true but am fully persuaded to the contrary. Whilst I do not doubt that it reflects your own views I am quite certain that there are some rightwing Tories who have a callous disregard for the suffering that they have wilfully brought to poor and vulnerable people in society. Freezing JSA and other benefit rates for years provides clear evidence of that - particularly when such policies are accompanied by significant tax cuts for the more fortunate. The attitude of many Tories to Trade Unions points very much in the same direction. Far from being content with the massive imbalance in power in the workplace brought about by the Legislation from the 80s and 90s the Government is clearly seeking to reduce workers to a status much closer to serfdom by making it impossible for Trade Unions to effectively represent them. The stench of a Totalitarian state is very apparent in the attitude now being adopted. I do not absolve the LibDems either - in that for all their declared liberalism they were complicit in the last Parliament in imposing fees at a level that would deter workers seeking redress via an Employment Tribunal. Both Coalition parties made a significant contribution there to the progress of human wickedness in how as a society we treat the weak and vulnerable.
Just got back from hospital from my operation. All OK though I feel knackered and slightly odd.
Must be more odd hearing that Farron is LD leader. Best wishes from over here in the West.
Best wishes Mike
Politically tho - where on earth is the next bright spark in the LDs coming from? Farron may do a workmanlike job, and may steady the ship. However everything about Farron just screams the question - who's next?
In the last few years I've not met anyone who could be described as a 'bright young thing' and also has a LD alliegence. Clegg was one thing, but the idea that Farron could motivate opinion doesn't hold water.
@The_Apocalypse 'On the structural deficit, I understand the need for cuts - but I don't like how some groups (e.g pensioners) are completely projected, whereas other groups, such as the low-paid are deemed fair game. If cuts affected all groups, as opposed to just specific groups, I wouldn't be so opposed. '
I don't disagree - but would also argue that if the fiscal position is so difficult we should not be getting tax cuts at all. I took the same view throughout the last Parliament. It was all very well for the LibDems boasting about massively raising the Personal Allowance but doing so increased the need to slash public expenditure to obtain any given improvement in the Budget Deficit. Of course, such a policy was more progressive than cutting the standard rate but still brought no benefit at all to the really poor. It would have been much better to have effectively frozen Personal Allowances by simply adjusting them on a Rooker/Wise basis and imposed significantly smaller cuts in public spending.
You are making a mistake thinking one thing is dependent on another. Low paid tax allowance increases were paid for (at least in part) by not uplifting the higher rate bands. Reducing the 50p band collected more taxes. The point is that Osborne and the LDs accepted that the tax changes would slow the reduction in the deficit.
I don't think that counters my point at all. A political decision may have been made to offset one tax cut with another tax increase but I do not believe that such flexibility is appropriate at a time of supposed Budgetary crisis.
@Casino_Royale, I suppose it's a matter of how many people will be affected. Housing Benefit changes affected around half a million people, but the IFS states that the budget could will effect up to 13m families.
@Disraeli A very good question. Right now I'm not even sure what Burnham/Cooper would exactly do, overall in terms of policy/ideas, which is why I couldn't pick them. I wouldn't pick what Corbyn is offering either. So, I'd probably end up with some ideas Kendall's offered, incidentally.
EDIT: Well, council houses etc. I like in terms of Corbyn, so its' not strictly true I reject all of his ideas.
I doubt it will be anything like that number and it depends to what degree they're affected of course. Plenty were hit by the changes to child benefit.
People would rather the money was spent on education, health, pensions and (probably) defence than continue Brown's bloated tax credit empire.
No Conservative wants - or enjoys - seeing people suffer in poverty. The best route out of poverty is a well-paid job, and that requires a strong economy and higher wages.
I wish the penultimate sentence was true but am fully persuaded to the contrary. Whilst I do not doubt that it reflects your own views I am quite certain that there are some rightwing Tories who have a callous disregard for the suffering that they have wilfully brought to poor and vulnerable people in society. Freezing JSA and other benefit rates for years provides clear evidence of that - particularly when such policies are accompanied by significant tax cuts for the more fortunate. The attitude of many Tories to Trade Unions points very much in the same direction. Far from being content with the massive imbalance in power in the workplace brought about by the Legislation from the 80s and 90s the Government is clearly seeking to reduce workers to a status much closer to serfdom by making it impossible for Trade Unions to effectively represent them. The stench of a Totalitarian state is very apparent in the attitude now being adopted. I do not absolve the LibDems either - in that for all their declared liberalism they were complicit in the last Parliament in imposing fees at a level that would deter workers seeking redress via an Employment Tribunal. Both Coalition parties made a significant contribution there to the progress of human wickedness in how as a society we treat the weak and vulnerable.
You read too many fictional stories and believe them. (Text books news, opinion, political works.)
There are some rotten apples in both parties, some cruel ideologically driven fanatical idiots who believe in truly stupid policies that would cause suffering and harm.
Apart from that the morality of left and right are about identical .
Out of interest, what is the government doing to solve asset price inflation?
Some things to manage the consequences - such as Help to Buy - and have tried to reform the planning system. But not much; reasonably enough they were focused on fixing the immediate problem and saw API (a consequence of QE) as a lower priority. Frankly, anyway, it's only housing where it impacts real life for most people.
I'm thinking more from the perspective of Conservatives, who (from what I can see) ideally want to implement a Conservative agenda. If they (because of a minority) can't do that, then it does seem to be something of a failure
They only have their backbenchers to blame. But I'd rather that we have good government than make everything a trial of strength.
There appears to be this idea everyone in public sector is a waster, or a vested interest - and that if they oppose any government changes to health, or education it's because they are a 'vested interest' rather than having any genuine kind of concern.
I don't think the unions have helped the long-term interests of their members. In opposing all change they have come across as vested interests - which they are, by definition - rather than disinterested public servants. I've no doubt that the majority of individuals are working in the public sector for the right reasons, but that's not what comes across.
I'm also not too keen on property taxes in general - I was not really a fan of the Mansion Tax. However, I like all of your other ideas.
Mansion tax was problematic because it had a threshold and would require frequent revaluations. I would revalue based on last transfer of property, annually uprated by inflation.
The real advantage of property tax is it's hard to avoid and it catches all those non-UK based individuals and investors who buy property and then leave it empty (as a store of wealth).
The value of UK residential housing is £5.75 trillion. At 1% this yields £57.5bn per year.
I'd replace the central government mandated local spending with this. Total council tax is £27bn, so let's say this costs £13.5 billion. )and Stamp Duty was £9bn - not sure of split between residential and commercial, so let's say £6bn related to residential. (Both of these are to avoid doubt taxation).
That leaves £38bn to play with. I'd use, say, £5 billion to reduce fuel taxes by 20%; £15 billion to reduce NICs (with a focus on the low paid/young) with cuts in both employer NIC and employee NIC. The balance (£18bn) can then go to reducing the deficit further.
I don't think it's hugely likely given her attacks on Burnham and Cooper as well as Corbyn. But if Kendall does finish in 4th then that will pose some awkward discussions for the Blairite gang. It's not just awkward for her but for those young thrusting Shadow Ministers such as Umunna and Hunt who backed her so much. It could be something that's discussed before ballot papers get printed but I wouldn't bank on it. If Kendall did pull out then I think Yvette Cooper would be the main beneficiary. It would be odd for her to pull out without then backing someone else to win and there's no love lost between her and Burnham.
A possibly more pertinent question than the one I posed in passing earlier is whether there is a chance that Kendall might withdraw rather than suffer the ignominy of finishing last by a wide margin?
If so, how would that change the dynamic of the race?
Wrong way around, Cooper and Kendall have just had a bitter spat through proxies over Kendall's childlessness and Cooper's children and Kendall actually gets on quite well with Burnham
All the reports I've had suggest that Burnham and Kendall loathe each other.
Comments
Think I'm going to hold my nose, sign up to the £3 Labour thing and do my bit. The only other time I affiliated myself to a party was the Tory society at university (in 1994 too!) and the year's membership of that was I think £3 as well. Never thought I'd ever "join" the Labour Party though!
Obviously, in the case of a Corbyn election we know exactly what we'd get, but it wouldn't last for long. In the event of a Burnham or Cooper election, it's not obvious what direction Labour would go in. Both candidates have been as vague, as vague can be, and whether it's because their genuinely out of ideas, or looking to collect the most amount of preference votes remains to be seen.
As for Tory polices leading to happier Britain, I supposed if you're not one of the ghastly low-paid people, or a public sector worker (ghastly), or one of the many young people in the country, or a renter etc. then I guess it may apply to you. But certainly, Conservative polices will be making certain groups happier, as opposed to the country as whole. I doubt many families will be happy, at finding that their working and child tax credits have been withdrawn.
There appears to be this idea that Labour, have suddenly 'rejected' New Labour. But I don't think activists, have ever been fans of New Labour necessarily. What I find most odd, is that on PB there is idea that Labour activists are uniquely this militant, ideological sort of people, and Conservative activists are somehow the complete opposite of this. You'd never guess this was the same activist base, that thought IDS was a good idea, or that the Tory party in general spent 13 years in opposition, with its only problems of being too to the right of British politics. Labour activists 'tolerated' New Labour, because at some point they realised that it's far better to be in government - and a position to help change the lives of people, then to carper in ideological purity in opposition. Ideological purity is an impossible state for not just Labour, but any political party, because most people aren't straight laced ideologues.
They have different attitudes to things, depending on the subject/situation, and it can vary left or right. As @Danny565 has rightly said, Labour activists are more than happy to sign up to a modernising agenda, when they have a leader who will deliver them a majority. They voted for Tony Blair, and David Miliband. The rejection of Kendall, is in part due to a lack of belief that she has the leadership skills to deliver Labour a majority in 2020. Being a successful political leader is more than just simply giving lip-service to things Conservative loyalists agree with - Jim Murphy, more than anyone proved that this May. It also requires having actual leadership skills, being able to carry a party with you, and having good political acumen. Given that Kendall appears to lack strategic skills, now in the leadership contest, I doubt that bodes well for her in the future.
Electorally, I suspect the cuts to tax credits will have a similar effect to those to child benefit and housing benefit in the last parliament.
Two very interesting posts (or one split post).
Supposing that Labour had already elected the leader and she was a charismatic person, bright and fresh, and "voter attractive".
Imagine that Corbyn, Cooper, Burnham and Kendall were not running as leader, but instead presenting ideas & policies to the new leader for her adoption. The new leader couldn't pick'n'mix, but had to choose a complete slate of policies, i.e. all-Corbyn, or all-Cooper etc.
Whose set of policies would you want the new leader to adopt?
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/07/alistair-darling-why-i-changed-my-mind-on-tax-credits/
Re the SLAB leadership race - only Ladbrokes taking bets - Kezia 1/50 and Ken 12/1. Kezia clearly the party machine favourite, however as its now 1 member 1 vote, the vote could easily end up much closer than the odds suggest. SLAB still being cagey around membership numbers - 15,500 has been circulating as the current figure. Interestingly in 2011 leadership election Ken won over 50% of the membership vote in the first round.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/104317
Only problem is that I cannot see any record of that ever being available with the mainstream bookies.
Just check here clicking the all history tab from Oddschecker.
http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/next-labour-leader/bet-history/jeremy-corbyn/today
To reply to Disraeli and indirectly to Apocalypse: essentially I want as much social democracy as the electorate will accept. So I'd probably go for a Corbyn programme if we had the sort of brilliant leader you describe to persuade people to support it. I'm supporting Cooper as the most credible left of centre candidate, but I'd be happier if she had a clear portrayal of the sort of Britain that she'd like to lead us towards - as Jeremy does, which tempted me to give him my first preference, even though I've decided against in the end.
I'm just one voter, but I think that's fairly typical of members.
(And hello from Sausalito, under clear skies with a sea breeze.)
@Disraeli A very good question. Right now I'm not even sure what Burnham/Cooper would exactly do, overall in terms of policy/ideas, which is why I couldn't pick them. I wouldn't pick what Corbyn is offering either. So, I'd probably end up with some ideas Kendall's offered, incidentally.
EDIT: Well, council houses etc. I like in terms of Corbyn, so its' not strictly true I reject all of his ideas.
The party’s ruling fortysomethings — Yvette Cooper, Andy Burnham, Liz Kendall — seem to be friends of the EU without quite knowing why. When they profess their commitment to the cause, they do it with the studied enthusiasm of a man smiling across the dinner table at a wife he was bounced into marrying by overzealous parents. Press them and they will say something about “internationalism”, an abstraction that vies with “progressive” and “social justice” for zero-content vapidity.
The best I could get on Corbyn was 80/1 with Hills - as ever I was only able to place £6.05 on these odds after somebody, I can't recollect who, tipped him.
I also got Chuka on the morning of election at 6/1 but managed to cash out before he pulled out. So got a tidy profit there which allowed me to speculate on Corbyn.
I would bet they could not explain why they believe such things.
Not to blow my own trumpet or anything, but that might have been me: http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/discussion/comment/699401/#Comment_699401 (on 6 June).
Look out for a renewed Corbyn surge after he's set himself apart from the other candidates by being the only one to actually oppose the Tory welfare bill.
Harman has, inadvertently I'm sure, done him a huge favour: now he can be the only candidate to actually fight the Tories all the way through the summer.
"...essentially I want as much social democracy as the electorate will accept."
Exactly! Better, from your point of view, to be in power and be able to do something, than powerless in opposition but with ideological purity intact.
@The_Apocalypse
I had a bet with myself that you'd reply as you did!
As a centrist, I support a lot of what Kendall says (though not all of it by any means), but I agree with other posters that she is not currently the best leader.
Putting partisanship to one side, this is a really tough choice for Labour supporters. Hopefully the candidates will start to clarify what they stand for a little bit in the next few weeks. I won't hold my breath though. They are politicians after all!
All plays very well to Corbyn.
Corbyn's stairway to heaven would go down like a Led Zeppelin!
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/#/politics/market/1.103946886
I don't know, but Corbyn is starting to generate resistance though it's very feeble compared to the resistance inside Labour against Kendall.
I think the betting odds are about right, at least in the order of the candidates.
As I said in the past, Corbyn is all about second preferences.
Corbyn will have more votes than Kendall, so the leading candidates will drift towards Corbyn's position to try to maximize their second preferences.
Long story short: Corbyn is kingmaker, Kendall is an also-ran.
a) Corbyn really wants to be leader;
b) That if he becomes leader, he would be as disastrous as many think.
I think some Conservative supporters on here are making a big mistake in treating his threat so lightly. There is a widespread view (rightly or wrongly) that the 'system' has mucked people about for the last seven years without being punished. Whilst he would not be an inspiring orator, if he can get a team behind him that could energise those feelings and point out a new direction for the country then he would be a real threat.
It would be utter rubbish, but large chunks of the populace who are fed up might buy it.
Having said that there are big questions: his ability to take the party with him being perhaps the largest.
If Miliband had created a consistent, coherent vision - as opposed to his scattergun approach to filling his bank sheet of paper - then he might have been able to do much better.
I hope he wins. Not because he will obviously fail - I'm not sure he will - but because he will give a voice to many people who have been ignored since the 1980s.
http://www.bloomberg.com/energy
I was thinking more of hubris in regard to the Tory party generally (MPs/activists/members) as opposed to just the hierarchy.
The British Bill of Rights, as far as I was aware was 'put out of consultation' after it was clear that the Bill wasn't going to pass through the HoCs. So rather than there being progress, that one has actually gone backwards. I mentioned Fox Hunting because it matches the 'controversial' definition, in the Spectator link.
In reference to the Tories you know: do you mean that Tory voters believe that polices won't make Britain as a whole happy, or that the polices are of benefit to groups such as the low-paid, the young, renters etc.
On the structural deficit, I understand the need for cuts - but I don't like how some groups (e.g pensioners) are completely protected, whereas other groups, such as the low-paid are deemed fair game. If cuts affected all groups, as opposed to just specific groups, I wouldn't be so opposed.
People would rather the money was spent on education, health, pensions and (probably) defence than continue Brown's bloated tax credit empire.
No Conservative wants - or enjoys - seeing people suffer in poverty. The best route out of poverty is a well-paid job, and that requires a strong economy and higher wages.
This is no 1997.
And all those people who have been ignored since the 1980's, are ignored because of two things: 1. They usually live in safe seats. 2. The poor and the young don't vote as much as the rich and the old.
Of course if things go the way of the Titanic for the country, then that would change as the number of the poor and people who are fed up would simply increase.
Whilst that's enough for me to like him, I'd never vote for him.
:-D
In reference to the Tories I know, I've never heard them refer to the low paid or public sector workers as ghastly. The fundamental issue, though, is that asset price inflation has got out of control and this is creating a fundamental structural imbalance: solving this (not easy) will do a lot to resolve the issues of young people, renters, etc.
My thoughts:
(1) annual property tax on all residential property to replace employment based taxes
(2) capital gains tax on all property disposals, but with roll-over relief to the extent that proceeds from the sale of a principal private residence are used to buy a new PPR
(3) Restricting the ability to use debt financing to provide a tax shield on rental income for BTL properties
(4) Policies to encourage new long-term investors into property (especially pension funding) possibly with a trade off to limit the rents in return
(5) Freeing up the planning system
And I agree with you on pensioners (although it's not accurate to say they are completely protected - don't forget the "granny tax" from 2012). But I'd look at rolling the winter fuel allowance and various other allowances into the basic state pension and making them taxable.
'On the structural deficit, I understand the need for cuts - but I don't like how some groups (e.g pensioners) are completely projected, whereas other groups, such as the low-paid are deemed fair game. If cuts affected all groups, as opposed to just specific groups, I wouldn't be so opposed. '
I don't disagree - but would also argue that if the fiscal position is so difficult we should not be getting tax cuts at all. I took the same view throughout the last Parliament. It was all very well for the LibDems boasting about massively raising the Personal Allowance but doing so increased the need to slash public expenditure to obtain any given improvement in the Budget Deficit. Of course, such a policy was more progressive than cutting the standard rate but still brought no benefit at all to the really poor. It would have been much better to have effectively frozen Personal Allowances by simply adjusting them on a Rooker/Wise basis and imposed significantly smaller cuts in public spending.
Out of interest, what is the government doing to solve asset price inflation? On Tory MPs, well I suppose it depends on what perspective you're coming from. If you're looking from a objective POV, then yes if the government can't persuade Parliament of the merits of legislation then it shouldn't become law. However, I'm thinking more from the perspective of Conservatives, who (from what I can see) ideally want to implement a Conservative agenda. If they (because of a minority) can't do that, then it does seem to be something of a failure, particularly since many on the Right didn't appear to think British Bill of Rights, prior to going to 'consultation' didn't go far enough.
While I don't think Tory voters would actually say, or believe that the low-paid are ghastly, I do get a general sense of contempt for the public sector, and public sector workers, in the same way some on the Left have for the private sector. There appears to be this idea everyone in public sector is a waster, or a vested interest - and that if they oppose any government changes to health, or education it's because they are a 'vested interest' rather than having any genuine kind of concern.
On your ideas the first one, sounds like the American system, in which you declare all of your taxes at the end of the year. I'm not so sure that's preferable to the system we have now. I'm also not too keen on property taxes in general - I was not really a fan of the Mansion Tax. However, I like all of your other ideas.
@JEO I guess that's a good point on immigrants being left-wing economically, although I'm not convinced that for all on Left, there is a desire to make the country more 'left-wing' through immigration. I think for example, for someone like Corbyn - he genuinely thinks immigration is a good thing, as opposed to having a political agenda behind such a policy. One thing I do agree though, is that the Left needs to take more a stand in regard to social issues, which directly contradict the equality agenda in all communities, including ethnic minority communities. I suppose on the Islamic Veil, there's the argument that it's a choice to wear the veil, and so it's an argument over someone's freedom to choose. Something I was thinking of, was more FGM, forced marriages etc.
Good wishes to Mr Smithson. Hope his surgeon did not have too much of an eye on the Open.
I know that most people, want a reduction in the welfare state, but do most feel the lowest paid are getting too much benefits? Some recent polling was done, and *if* it's true will most support the tax credit reduction, but most also don't feel that groups such as the low-paid, and even the unemployed get too much in benefits. I agree that the best route out poverty is a well-paid job, and high wages - I doubt many, if any on the Left (well, I'll give you Owen Jones and Jack Monroe) seriously think benefits can offer a route out of poverty. What I think many did think, was that benefits could help alleviate the effects of poverty. The trouble is, for many who lose tax credits, there are unlikely to make-up the short-fall - at least according to the IFS, who claim that the living wage won't compensate for those tax credit reductions. I personally was hoping to see the LW come in much more sooner than 2020, by which date the tax credit changes will be well underway.
Politically tho - where on earth is the next bright spark in the LDs coming from? Farron may do a workmanlike job, and may steady the ship. However everything about Farron just screams the question - who's next?
In the last few years I've not met anyone who could be described as a 'bright young thing' and also has a LD alliegence. Clegg was one thing, but the idea that Farron could motivate opinion doesn't hold water.
Clegg has to return.
There are some rotten apples in both parties, some cruel ideologically driven fanatical idiots who believe in truly stupid policies that would cause suffering and harm.
Apart from that the morality of left and right are about identical .
But not much, and not enough, is the real answer. They only have their backbenchers to blame. But I'd rather that we have good government than make everything a trial of strength. I don't think the unions have helped the long-term interests of their members. In opposing all change they have come across as vested interests - which they are, by definition - rather than disinterested public servants. I've no doubt that the majority of individuals are working in the public sector for the right reasons, but that's not what comes across. Mansion tax was problematic because it had a threshold and would require frequent revaluations. I would revalue based on last transfer of property, annually uprated by inflation.
The real advantage of property tax is it's hard to avoid and it catches all those non-UK based individuals and investors who buy property and then leave it empty (as a store of wealth).
The value of UK residential housing is £5.75 trillion. At 1% this yields £57.5bn per year.
I'd replace the central government mandated local spending with this. Total council tax is £27bn, so let's say this costs £13.5 billion. )and Stamp Duty was £9bn - not sure of split between residential and commercial, so let's say £6bn related to residential. (Both of these are to avoid doubt taxation).
That leaves £38bn to play with. I'd use, say, £5 billion to reduce fuel taxes by 20%; £15 billion to reduce NICs (with a focus on the low paid/young) with cuts in both employer NIC and employee NIC. The balance (£18bn) can then go to reducing the deficit further.
Tax rates aren't tax takes, and it's the latter that matters.
Cuts in direct taxation pump up indirect tax takes.