Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Goodbye to the Middle Ground
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Goodbye to the Middle Ground
It’s been an axiom of political analysis over at least the last quarter century that elections are won on the centre ground, or, if neither of the main two parties is on that ground, then by the party nearest it. Occupying and dominating that position was crucial to Tony Blair in government and opposition, and heading towards it defined strategy for his two predecessors too. Likewise, David Cam…
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Succumbed to the curse of the new thread, bah!
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/iconic-cunard-building-liverpools-river-6102276
I've lost count how many of the city's great buildings are coming back out of mothballs.
But the Cunard's a beauty, based on the Farnese Palace, Rome, with a few humorous additions...
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cunard_House_Liverpool_window.jpg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cunard_Building_-_detail_-_geograph.org.uk_-_720679.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/pharmcat/2680499726
(I'm sure there's a Red Indian somewhere as well!)
Yes indeed! Yet another reason the left right spectrum, while not completely without merit, is mostly tribalistic bullsh*t dressed up in inconsistent ideology to justify ingrained dislikes and where one thinks they should be on it because of a myriad of reasons often unconnected with any policies espoused.
It's not completely clear which parts of the consensus Miliband is rejecting - but if Labour win, we'll be in for "interesting times"...
Fair enough but Tiny Blair Cameron is only a second rate Blair impersonator after all, so you should never expect too much from him. Unless of course you didn't mean the blatant hypocrisy displayed by incompetent tory spinners whining about 'Stalinists' trying to fix energy prices in the name of populism?
Best not look too closely at Osbrowne using taxpayers money to subsidise mortgages either. ;^)
LOL
More evidence that the Mail is getting fully behind Cameron.
Con maj: 4.0
Lab maj: 2.84
No maj: 2.44
http://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/market?id=1.101416490
Best not look too closely at Osbrowne using taxpayers money to subsidise mortgages either. ;^)
LOL
Couldn't an energy company just make their cheapest deal more expensive?
Best not look too closely at Osbrowne using taxpayers money to subsidise mortgages either. ;^)
LOLThat's not a new policy. They've been trailing that for months.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/04/the-view-from-22-special-fuel-wars-how-to-get-the-best-deal-for-the-consumers/
That was just one of the reasons that particular populist posturing seemed to have been u-turned on but that won't stop there being another attempt. Possibly even at the tory conference if Gove's strong hints are anything to go by.
Night all.
On the other hand, it appears from the Mail leaks that the Conservative counterstroke is to be a tax break for married couples, which is a pretty traditional idea. I suspect that resistance will come not so much from unmarried couples as from single people, who seem increasingly fed up with parties wooing couples and families, while showing no discernible interest in people on their own. There are lots of them, some of them ex-married.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2435723/Marriage-good-Britain--thats-Im-backing-tax-break-says-DAVID-CAMERON.html
'But the obvious question is the deficit one - unlike the energy freeze this is going to cost the Exchequer money.'
Did I miss how Ed said his pledge of an 8 to 6 school day was going to be funded or the 200,000 houses per year?
Is there any polling evidence to back this assertion up?
What I see is a leader with no coherent view at all, who has been flip-flopping around for two years completely unable to come up with any alternative to the government's view on the central issue of the day (which admittedly isn't his fault - there isn't one). This week's move 'to the left' is indeed that, in the sense of abandoning any pretence at sensible policy-making in favour of crude populism, but it looks very much like displacement activity rather than a shift based on intentional strategic positioning. It is very striking indeed that Labour have given up arguing about cuts, the deficit, or the economy; they have lost this argument, and are no longer bothering to put increased public spending as the centrepiece of their offering, because they can see it is not credible and can see that the line that Osborne's gentle move back to fiscal prudence would wreck the economy is increasingly risible.
So what do you do when you've lost the argument? You look for scapegoats and blame them. You invent some wicked class of plutocrats and stir up division. How convenient it is for Miliband to blame bankers, Murdoch, and now (bizarrely) the bewildered ranks of pensioners and small investors who wickedly own shares in Centrica or SSE, earning a modest return on long-term investment in our energy sector. If Labour can't promise to give freebies away from the public finances, invent a class of plutocrats who can be forced to give freebies to voters instead.
It is political displacement activity, pure and simple, an attempt to distract from the fact that he has nothing to say and to stir up division so he can claim to be 'on the side' of voters against a non-existent enemy.
It might work, of course; inventing scapegoats is the oldest trick in the book, and has worked for countless demagogues in the past. That he has chosen to make as his centrepiece an irresponsible attack on much-needed investment, in a sector where the 'rip-off' actually comprises the second-lowest energy prices in Western Europe, tells you much about his utter lack of suitability for office.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At91c3wX1Wu5dGViNUppLVFxalJKN21kQXlfNWo0d1E#gid=0
It's not that people don't expect obsequious and unquestioning Cameroonian spinners on PB, it's that they're quite clearly so comically inept at spinning that makes them so very amusing.
Tory populist posturing good, anyone else does it then instant hysteria! *rolleyes*
Oh, check your vanilla messages too
David, I have to disagree. William Hague as Leader of the Conservatives rightwards as he too chose to retreat to his comfort zone in the hope of shoring up the Conservative vote against the threat of another Labour Government by appealing to UKIP voters. He chose to define his position 'Save the pound'. Ed Miliband has decided he is going to bring back Socialism and he want Left leaning Libdems to help him deliver this goal. And if that is what he stands for now, it means he is against a balanced economic recovery which is sustainable in the future.
It would be a real irony if Ed Miliband manages to see the Conservative party membership start to rise again between now and the next GE.
I suppose they can afford to add a few billion more to the 600 billion they would have added onto the debt by 2015.
Fascinating:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2435688/The-average-woman-revealed-Study-blends-thousands-faces-worlds-women-look-like.html
"Meet the world's Mrs Averages: Scientists blend thousands of faces together to reveal what the typical woman's face looks like in 41 different countries from around the globe".
http://faceoftomorrow.org/artwork/
On economic matters, no way. People want control of their own finances: it's very simple actually. Cut taxes, keep it private and make it your own. Maggie got that spot on, and the reason Blair succeeded so brilliantly is that he got it too. And that's why they won, and won big. Britain hasn't changed that much in this regard, and never will. The world won't either. It's just a basic human drive. Think Dawkins. It's about survival and the selfish gene. It's THE fundamental driver of human nature.
So Milliband is now going against the basic human nature. Never works. Never will.
On social issues your point is less contentious, but I'm not so sure. The Blair revolution wasn't just about apeing Maggie, it was also about sensing a mood change. The Tories thought at the time that they had the nation's pulse with their (utterly hypocritical) back to basics. Actually the Daily Mail doesn't speak for the majority who I suspect are a lot more laid back than the media tend to think.
Anyway, I think the social point is up for grabs. Sorry but the economic one isn't. And that's why Cameron will win.
On the social front, the recent debate over gay marriage is a good case in point. There was unanimity across the three front benches and only a small degree of opposition within one, while the portion of the population opposed is a good deal higher. Even UKIP, who benefitted from Tory protest votes, remained as quiet as possible on their specific position as their generally libertarian stance ran counter to the tide they were sailing with.
"Cameron stands up for family values as he announces £1,000 tax break for every married couple"
they at least have the decency to state the actual policy as
"The tax break will not be available to couples that have a higher rate taxpayer which, in 2015, will be those earning more than £42,285"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2435719/Cameron-stands-family-values-announces-1-000-tax-break-married-couple.html#ixzz2g9lp8MmO
There's a couple of issues with this. The first is that one of the key points of a transferable marriage tax allowance is to allow families more flexibility about who earns the income without being penalised by a tax system with escalating bands. Roughly (I've not worked it through exactly) this will only benefit those families where one parent earns below £42k and the other earns below £11k. There are going to be a lot of core Tory voters who will be pretty pissed off that (again) a total household income of £50k+ is still taxed more highly if earned by one partner than by both; I'm pretty sure that the expectation was that this policy would help to offset the child benefit changes for medium-income households with only one working parent, and in fact it does nothing there. Perhaps I'm misjudging the altruism of Tory supporters, but this might be one of those policies that comes across as so stingy that it would have been better to do nothing.
The second issue is one of tax administration - I guess it's going to involve an election on a self-assessment tax return. That's scary for a lot of people who've never had to submit one before, as most sub-£40k earners don't need to. Under HMRC's present systems I can't see a way of implementing this without the person surrendering their allowance signing an election and submitting that through the self-assessment system themselves, then the person claiming the allowance submitting a return to claim it. There's no provision for joint-signing a return under the present "individual taxpayer" system. It's reasonable to say that there are simple solutions, but HMRC don't have a good track record of implementing new solutions, simple or otherwise, inside a 3 or 4 year window. So claimants could be looking at paying minimum £50/each (i.e. half the total benefit to the couple) to get someone to submit their self-assessment returns.
"However the allowance will not be available to couples that include higher rate taxpayers – in which one spouse is paid £42,285 from 2015/16 - which could infuriate many Conservatives, particularly in the wake of the child benefit cuts on families with one earner on more than 60,000 a year."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10340987/Married-couples-to-receive-1000-tax-break.html
"Why a Tory/Ukip alliance would benefit Labour":
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/anthonywells/2013/09/why-a-toryukip-alliance-would-benefit-labour/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24135021
Agencies have begun making contingency plans ahead of the 1 October deadline to pass a new funding resolution."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24306933
Ask people if they would like to be heartless bastards and hold on to their own money and obviously they say 'no'. But everyone wants as much of their income in their own pocket as they can keep. The great majority would like to see their taxes cut, they just don't want it done at the expense of decent services. What they do want chopped away is wastage, wastage of their own money.
The nationalisation question shows how much in danger you are of getting sucked into Mike's blinkered polling vision. Again, ask if people want to privatise Royal Mail and they will say 'no'. The very word 'privatisation' is loaded and skews results. However, ask if taxpayers should see state ownership of mail services, or nationalisation, or see it 'taken out of the free market' and you will get a very different response. Or try this one: 'Should Internet user providers be nationalised?' and you'll get 95% No. Stop and think, and there's really very little difference.
People are NOT economically left of the policy makers. Actually it's the opposite. We're all driven by a selfish gene, and altruism is all very well and good, and of course we all 'say' it's what we want to be doing. But inside, in the ballot box, or when we see our pay slip we want to have as much of it ourselves as we can, thank you very much.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24314319#"
"Greek police have arrested the leader of the far-right Golden Dawn party, Nikolaos Mihaloliakos, on charges of forming a criminal organisation."
(Alan, nothing to do with your bereavement for which I'm, likewise, sorry.)
ROUND UP OF SEPT'S COUNCIL BY ELECTION RESULTS
UKIP GAIN 3
CON GAIN 2 LOST 2
LAB GAIN 1 LOST 1
LD GAIN 1 LOST 3
GREEN GAIN 1
INDS G 1 L 2
Even in a world of soundbites, 24 hour sensationialism and poor education I refuse to believe it. Image will sway some undoubtedly and there is a chunk that won't be swayed from the position of their tribe no matter how daft they get but there is still a core of common sense in the British people that will look to the common good. I refuse to believe otherwise as to do so is a counsel of despair.
If Ed is going to provide 200K houses a year he needs to tell us how this is going to be funded and who is going to build them. If he is simply going to follow Osborne's plan and free enough credit for private housebuilders to supply them fine. If they are to be funded from the public purse he is being dishonest if he says he is following tory spending plans.
His plan to seize land from developers was (a) nuts and (b) unaffordable as the compulsory purchase bill would be horrific.
His attack on energy companies threatens essential investment in that industry, investment that he failed to encourage as Secretary of State when he was much more interested in climate change and international conferences.
I refuse to believe there will not be a price to be paid for such incoherence and incompetence.
And it's not about the money - the free school meals policy doesn't help me personally, but I think that's a good policy.
" Of the plans to remove carbon from Britain’s power sector, the Chancellor said: “If an aluminium smelter closes in the UK and opens in another country that is not going to make a huge difference to the world of climate change but it is going to make a huge difference to the area where the jobs are being lost because the company has moved.”
Energy companies say that green taxes account for about 10 per cent of an average household bill. Michael Fallon, the Energy Minister, is understood to be looking at reducing the burden of environmental measures on household bills in the next Conservative manifesto. “We are confident we can be green, but a cheaper green,” one source said. " http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article3881558.ece
On topic - thanks for the article Mr Herdson - I really agree with much of your thoughts re EdM but heyho!
Are you under the age of 65? Did you get bereavement allowance and bereavement payment, which is FAR in excess of the piddling tax break Dave is offering.
"...The Social Contract, said Labour’s October 1974 manifesto, “is about justice, equality, about concern for and protection of the lower paid, the needy, the pensioner and the handicapped in our society. It is about fairness between one man and another, and between men and women. It is about economic justice between individuals and between regions. It is about co-operation and conciliation, not conflict and confrontation.”
But history repeated itself. Evasion became widespread; products were relabelled, or spurious claims of quality upgrades made. Profits were taken on goods or services that had escaped the straitjacket. An inflationary pressure cooker was building. When it became clear this could not go on, Shirley Williams, the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection, oversaw the “price check scheme”, which was voluntary and intended to keep price rises on staple products to within 5 per cent for six months.
How well I remember that expensive farce: the derision, the photos of Mrs Williams holding up shopping baskets, the starter packs of notices and red triangles being delivered to shops for display to bewildered shoppers. Cigarettes and bread dropped out of the scheme. State-owned British Gas broke its price limit to build up reserves — but was allowed to stay in..." http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/matthewparris/article3881416.ece
Those benefits are based on NI contributions paid, anyway. And compare the amounts to what the government has saved in State Pension.
The whole thing's a mess, but I'm not sure that's the solution.
The reality is that higher rate tax payers have been absolutely hammered by this government losing the benefit of their personal allowances, losing their child benefit (x2 in my case), having restrictions put on their pension contributions, tightening of CGT loopholes and (way, way outside my pay grade) an ever tightening grip on monies overseas that has not been disclosed for tax.
At the same time we have had several million lower paid taken out of tax altogether, a significant reduction in tax for your basic rate taxpayer and now, apparently, a restriction on the marriage allowance to this category too.
The consequences of these policies are indisputable: the higher paid are paying an ever increasing share of the tax take. And yet the perception is the opposite.
Personally I think this is right for a number of reasons. Firstly, and most importantly, taxes had to increase to reduce the deficit. Secondly, the HRT are those that are doing best out of our society and therfore should contribute the most to keep it going. Thirdly, the poor have a stronger tendency to spend ensuring that demand has been maintained (albeit at the cost of savings and investment). Fourthly, it is the moral thing to do. Nearly all of our benefit recipients have real needs and frankly lousy lives where relatively small sums make a real difference.
At the next election I suspect that the Lib Dems will want to sing this rebalancing of the tax burden to the roof tops and claim credit for it. The tories' position is more awkward because they really have been stinging many of their natural supporters. And Labour will just go on and on about the cut in the higher rate as if that was the whole story.
Mr. Jessop, I concur. Civil Partnerships are now pointless.
Also, I loathe the term 'partner' in this sense. It's a soulless word.
On a happier note, just about the entire female cast of Agents of SHIELD is aesthetically pleasing.
Stick a microphone in their hand or shove them in the Big Brother house and suddenly people would know who they are. A few weeks ago Tim accused me of insulting the Scottish people because I dared to suggest that for a large section of the working class Scottish population, their final mind on the Independence Referendum will be made up for them by whatever the Daily Record or the Sun recommends on the morning of 18th September 2014. As someone who has stood for election at both municipal and parliamentary level, I do know that to be true, no matter how sad it may seem.
Try engaging most people in a political discussion, other than stereotypical views e.g. Scots Tories are English 5th columnists and Alex Salmond is either fantastic or a conceited sh1te, they re simply not interested. I do indeed wonder if next year's Euro elections might be marked by an all time low turnout in many parts of the country.
People simply cannot be bothered with politics and politicians. They think all politicians are the same. Politicians belong to a detached elite who have no interest in them (the voters) except when canvassing for votes at election time. Most politicians are seen as rich, over privileged, over paid, under (or un)employed people who wouldn't last 5 minutes in the real world and don't understand the real problems real people experience. This damning indictment applies as much to Labour politicians as Tory ones, particularly now with people like Miliband who hasn't had a real job in the real world before being parachuted into a cushy political career. Virtually the same allegation is made about David Cameron and Nick Clegg though they have had brief real working careers outside politics.
Ordinary people admire people like George Galloway and Tommy Sheridan. They see them as real people who are "just like them". They may not agree with them but they recognise their backgrounds and they don't speak with political class accents using PPE type 3 letter achronyms.
An enormous gulf now exists in this country between the typical voter and the politicians wanting their votes. As my mother would say, she votes for what she sees as the least worst option. Many "thinking" voters probably agree and others either no longer vote or simply don't care.
The 1970s crisis killed the post war consensus.
The 2008-???? crisis has done for the post Thatcher consensus.
All the parties are trying different ideas, new or old. One model will prevail and a new consensus will form around it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24314111
Now that we are I would pass a bill converting all existing gay partnerships into marriages and abolish them. You could have an opt out for those that want to end their CP by a certain date for those that did not want to be married but I doubt it would be used unless they were separating anyway.
We probably still need a class of cohabitation rights for those of any sexual orientation who have not formalised their relationship but again I see no reason at all why this should not be sexually neutral.
This is the sort of thing that is best done by the Law Commissions. It is technical and detailed, particularly in respect of tax, pensions and pension rights etc. But it needs tidied up.
There is now no place for the working class in politics, except as ballot-box fodder. Labour's reassessment of its links with the unions might produce more members (or might not) but a further loosening of the links makes it even less likely that those from a working class background will reach the top. The entire political structure is geared against them from recruitment and selection, through pre-election campaigns, to the patronising attitude shown by journalists and politicians who do them down because they don't speak proper. Although I've mentioned Labour and unions there, the same holds true for the other parties too.
Admittedly, part of the problem is that the working class have been turning off politics throughout this century (the big drop in turnout happened in 2001) but it's a vicious circle as parties ignore those who don't vote and those who don't vote aren't going to be enthused if they're ignored.
I am given to understand that TATAs steel works at Port Tabot, S Wales is exempt from the Green energy taxes - had this not been done then the works would have had to closed. That would have meant a loss of some 3,000 direct jobs and many, many more support jobs.
Sorry, but even with ‘opt-outs’ it’s a horrible idea - Consenting adults are more than capable of deciding whether they wish to marry, remain in a CP, or simply cohabit. Let them decide which most suits their needs.
When both taxes and benefits are analyses together, 60% of households are net recipients and the top 10% are contributing more than the next 30% combined. Possibly this is a fair tax system (after all a fair tax is defined as one paid by other people); but it leaves the country very dependent on the willingness of a very few to pay. Meanwhile the two Eds have promised to expand our welfare state in several ways. It is not a stable prospect in a world that is ageing, and with large numbers of households where benefits are the only income.
By the way, Alan's personal tragedy dwarfs anything we talk about, and the fact that he mentioned it as an example doesn't mean it's open season to badger him about whether he took beareavement allowance etc. His replies have been vety patient. This is supposed to be a friendly site, not bloody Guido.
"The Wales Audit Office (WAO) refused to approve Pembrokeshire's accounts after questioning such an arrangement.
The council allows top earners to leave its pension scheme and receive money instead for tax reasons.
Councillors in Carmarthenshire met on Friday to discuss a similar row over payments to its chief executive. Those payments, to Mark James, were judged to be unlawful by the WAO.
Payments to Pembrokeshire chief executive Bryn Parry Jones will be discussed by Pembrokeshire's corporate governance committee on Monday.
Both authorities have said their actions were backed by legal advice.
Plaid Cymru's local government spokesperson Rhodri Glyn Thomas has tabled an urgent question to local government minister Lesley Griffiths calling on her to make a statement on the matter.
"We are in an age of austerity and local government workers, who keep our vital services functioning, need to be reassured that those at the top are not getting special treatment," he said.
"The Welsh government needs to make a statement on whether it agrees with these damaging pensions opt-outs, and whether it believes they are legal.
"We need to know if this practice is happening in other public services."
Pembrokeshire council said the change was intended to "aid the recruitment and retention of senior staff" and involved no additional costs.
The WAO has refused to sign off Pembrokeshire council's accounts for 2012-13 because of what is termed a "difference of opinion" over the legality of the change.
It has also said it cannot close Carmarthenshire's accounts until the issue over payments in lieu of pension is resolved.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-west-wales-24299786
1. I said I was expecting to get a giveaway tax cut from the Tories and I was right. I have no idea why they restricted it to married couples but I'm glad they have done it as my tax bills have never been higher thanks to Ozzy's insane shambling over CB.
2. I was right and the always-very-sure-of-himself Antifrank was wrong. I said that Ed's energy masterstroke would see the parties start trading blows over the cost of living, rather than deficit/austerity. With this move, the Tories can't bang on about the deficit with a straight-face, as it will directly result in a decrease in government revenue.
Trying again:
What our politicans are not talking about is where the next rounds of cuts will fall. I think they will inevitably have the effect of increasing the real tax rates on the better paid even further. So obvious targets are WTC. There is something grossly immoral about a single person on £25K a year paying extra tax to subsidise a family earning more than £50K. This needs to be cut back further. We will hopefully see no repeat of the promise to protect HRT pensioners goodies such a Winter fuel allowance, free buses, TV licences and other absurdities paid for, once again by those having a lot less.
In short we will see the end of all universal benefits with the possible exception of the NHS. I suspect the tories will continue to ring fence spending on that but it will not go up in real terms. I really wonder how long we can continue to keep up our aid budget as well. Debt interest will absorb more and more of the tax base until we get into surplus. The pressure everywhere else will be acute. And what did Labour have to say about this? Absolutely nothing.
UKIP supporters, in particular, are generally to the left of the Conservatives economically, but to the right of them socially.
I agree about the marriage tax break, its ludicrous posturing
I tried to edit my post to apologise unreservedly but it would not let me. I am in the same boat as you are, I lost my wife very suddenly and recently, so am aware of the benefits and their time limits I was actually trying to be helpful but I can see it did not read as such. it was a badly written comment and I am very sorry if it upset you.
Maybe, but its smart politics for the time being. The tories have to avoid the charge they are the party of the rich, and working people on modest incomes are the key to the election.
By the way, if you have the misfortune as I did to be made redundant while still receiving BB, the BB is deducted from your JSA.
Austerity has not gone as a theme. You'll hear that word a lot more yet.
I fully support marriage in principle, and there is good evidence that marriages are more stable than cohabitation, and that children brought up in stable relationships there are better results both at school and less involvement in various forms of social delinquency.Whether tax breaks are the right way to do this, I am less convinced.
One reason for increasing social inequality is that the middle classes (and most immigrant groups) are the marrying sort, while in other communities marriage is nearly extinct, locking these groups into a spiral of decline.
Well, with this tax break they already have. We'll see how much "austerity" we hear about in the run-in to the election. We'll see...
The last review was in time for the 2002 elections, so it's probably overdue.