politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » YouGov on Labour’s recent policy announcements

Our "part-ELBOW" for this week updated for YouGov 8th Oct (total 5 polls now):

Lab 34.0% (-1.6)
Con 32.8% (+0.1)
UKIP 14.7% (+0.3)
LD 7.6% (+0.2)

Lab lead 1.2% (-1.7)

Note the Lab drop of 1.6% is only partly explained by the increases in the other main parties (Con barely up, in fact).

The public don't like tax rises but like spending is all it shows.

Even if they think the tax will not apply to them they are not that keen also (a lesson for some on the left who do envy politics)

FPT (Got caught by the new thread curse )

Bond_James_Bond said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

.

The argument that a Labour government will be all Cameron's fault, even though UKIP voters refuse to help him prevent one, is akin to arguing that it was all the pub's fault you drove home drunk.

Obviously you had to drive home with no regard for the consequences to the bus queue you took out. It was the pub's fault for selling you all that lager.

The most leftist thing about UKIP - and what may yet deliver them a few Labour votes - is a sincere and visceral conviction that everything is somebody else's fault and nothing is ever their own fault.

UKIP hasn't attracted people from the conservatives directly it has attracted those who have already been driven away by disgust of your party. No one else to blame but the tory party and Cameron in particular

For most people this argument fails because it is completely one-eyed. Cameron will be replaced, if he is, by Labour. Most people would agree, I think, that Cameron is more Conservative than Labour. Most would also agree, I think, that Miliband has moved his party much further to the left than has Cameron, although it is only the latter's supposed shift that enrages kippers.

Only a certain and unusual type of voter takes the view that if, because of me, I get Miliband instead of Cameron, that must be Cameron's fault. It's not; it's your fault for failing to take on board the above and letting it happen. You can't say you weren't warned.

Frankly your response is bollocks.

I as a voter do not want to vote for someone because they are slightly less big state than labour. I want to vote for someone who is small state. Cameron is not for a small state merely for a less big state. If I was looking for a small pet would you wouldn't think me mad for rejecting an elephant even though it was smaller than a mammoth you would think it quite sane when I said no thanks to both and went away petless

in the same vein

I as a voter do not want to vote for someone because they will infringe on my civil liberties and free speech slightly less than labour I want to vote for a party that believes in civil liberties and actually supports them.

I as a voter do not want to vote for someone who will not let the debt grow quite as fast as labour I want to vote for someone who is serious about the deficit and then going after the debt.

Do not offer me your tawdry compromises I am not interested in you being slightly better than Labour is not good enough for me nor for a million like me anymore we do not want you, we will not vote for you. Want our votes go and earn them don't whinge at us for your incapacity to do so

They should take this a step further and ask the voters what they think the voters will think about what the voters will think.

OblitusSumMe said:

...if the NHS is so important to Labour voters, his positioning on the NHS may not yield many Lab to Con switchers.

Do you really mean "not" here? Surely it would potentially yield many Lab to Con switchers, if he could convince them that he was genuine?

History is very much against him. I did a thread on it once a while back, the Tories were polling above historical levels on the NHS, which still meant they were getting smashed by Labour.

corporeal said:

OblitusSumMe said:

...if the NHS is so important to Labour voters, his positioning on the NHS may not yield many Lab to Con switchers.

Do you really mean "not" here? Surely it would potentially yield many Lab to Con switchers, if he could convince them that he was genuine?

History is very much against him. I did a thread on it once a while back, the Tories were polling above historical levels on the NHS, which still meant they were getting smashed by Labour.

This piece

http://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2013/02/14/corporeal-on-david-cameron-and-the-nhs/

___Bobajob___ said:

Weird question.

YouGov are asking the public a question on which they are entirely inexpert.

Why not just ask them what policies they themselves like?

Pollsters watching too much Family Fortunes.

TheScreamingEagles said:

OblitusSumMe said:

...if the NHS is so important to Labour voters, his positioning on the NHS may not yield many Lab to Con switchers.

Do you really mean "not" here? Surely it would potentially yield many Lab to Con switchers, if he could convince them that he was genuine?

I should have been clearer.

When it comes to the NHS, Labour supporters do get energised by their own party on this, and other parties don't energise them in the same way.

Particularly as the question mentions reversing the coalition's changes on the NHS.

But I understand your viewpoint.Oh, I think I get it now. So you're saying that their fervour on the NHS is such that it's something Cameron can never connect to?

And a sign of that fervour is the contrast between the number of Labour voters who think the NHS policies will be a vote-winner, compared to the electorate as a whole - which is less impressed.

Whereas it is notable that current Labour voters are not more likely to think that the mansion tax is a vote winner - even though they are probably more likely to be in favour of it personally.

''As always, any taxational challenge to the wealthy will be fiercely opposed by said wealthy but that doesn't make it the wrong thing to do.''

Wrong, it will be fiercely opposed by the middle classes.

Because the middle classes know that fancy left wing plans to target 'the rich' never succeed in their aim.

The middle classes always end up paying. Income tax, stamp duty, you name it. The middle class is footing the bill.

This is why any more schemes to target 'the rich' are viewed with massive skepticism, as the above graphic illustrates only too well.

___Bobajob___ said:

Weird question.

YouGov are asking the public a question on which they are entirely inexpert.

Why not just ask them what policies they themselves like?

Being expert doesn't prevent you having an opinion.

As many on here prove day after day...

UKPR have today updated their averaging of the polls up to Sun/YouGov's of 8 Oct. Its revised figures (with last week's in brackets) are:
Con 32 (31), Lab 34 (36), LD 8 (8)
As a consequence, it is showing Labour now winning 331 seats, down 23 seats compared with last week, with a majority therefore of 12 seats compared with 58 seats previously.
Doubtless this updated averaging of the polls will form the basis of Stephen Fisher's latest GE Seats projection, due to be published tomorrow morning.

TGOHF said:

Punative - but easier to calculate and collect than Labour's mansion tax.

And easier to avoid too.

taffys said:

''As always, any taxational challenge to the wealthy will be fiercely opposed by said wealthy but that doesn't make it the wrong thing to do.''

Wrong, it will be fiercely opposed by the middle classes.

Because the middle classes know that fancy left wing plans to target 'the rich' never succeed in their aim.

The middle classes always end up paying. Income tax, stamp duty, you name it. The middle class is footing the bill.

This is why any more schemes to target 'the rich' are viewed with massive skepticism, as the above graphic illustrates only too well.

As usual, completely wrong. Here's another take on the politics of wealth:

http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/john-kampfner-is-any-party-brave-enough-to-tackle-the-superrich-9782174.html

peter_from_putney said:

UKPR have today updated their averaging of the polls up to Sun/YouGov's of 8 Oct. Its revised figures (with last week's in brackets) are:
Con 32 (31), Lab 34 (36), LD 8 (8)
As a consequence, it is showing Labour now winning 331 seats, down 23 seats compared with last week, with a majority therefore of 12 seats compared with 58 seats previously.
Doubtless this updated averaging of the polls will form the basis of Stephen Fisher's latest GE Seats projection, due to be published tomorrow morning.

Fisher said at the bottom of his forecast last week that he wasn't going to use the UKPR average any more.

On topic: if the election boils down to a choice between the NHS/cost of living for Labour and the long-term economic plan of the Tories, these don't like look like winning numbers for Miliband.
Even if the ground fought over is his favourite topic.

That's before leadership ratings are taken into account, of course. Still plenty of time for black swans, but it almost feels like the real fight now is between the Tories and UKIP.

TGOHF said:

Easterross said:

The SNP has this afternoon introduced a new Land Tax in Scotland to replace Stamp Duty. It has 4 bands and above £250k it is 10%. That should go down with most house purchasers like a bag of sick. They have also cut health spending I believe from what I am seeing on Twitter!!

Is it 10% on the amount above 250k or the whole cost ?

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Government/Finance/scottishapproach/lbtt/lbtttaxcalculators

Easterross said:

The SNP has this afternoon introduced a new Land Tax in Scotland to replace Stamp Duty. It has 4 bands and above £250k it is 10%. That should go down with most house purchasers like a bag of sick. They have also cut health spending I believe from what I am seeing on Twitter!!

The average Scottish house price is £162000. The average Edinburgh house price (which is the most expensive area in the country) is £229,253.

TheWatcher said:

Patrick said:

Easterross said:

The SNP has this afternoon introduced a new Land Tax in Scotland to replace Stamp Duty. It has 4 bands and above £250k it is 10%. That should go down with most house purchasers like a bag of sick. They have also cut health spending I believe from what I am seeing on Twitter!!

10% above 250k???!!! That's insane. Any middle class person who needs to move house is going to get badly screwed. Tory revival nailed on (but not sure how big). IMHO the Nits have overreached. Even Scotland isn't that commie.

Most homes are worth £180K or less, so it's going to make little difference to your average Jock.

Imagine how bad things could have been in an independent Scotland though - good job they saw sense.

Will drive the wealthy, financial services, entrepreneurs etc away to some degree. Will damage the Scottish property market (no doubt putting some into negative equity). All round a shitty bad idea and bad for Scotland.

(A YES would have seen a pretty much bankrupt Scotland in short order because of currency issue - SNP insanity would have been mere icing on that cake).

Ah, it's banded - much more sensible:

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Government/Finance/scottishapproach/lbtt/lbtttaxcalculators

Still seems high. I'd have thought 5% on 250-500k and then 7% above that would be more fair.

I dislike the question. It's asking people to guess the impact of a policy on other people's voting intentions. Not quite as bad as a psychological 'study' which assessed the driving style of African lorry drivers by getting people who weren't African lorry drivers to imagine they were, but still.

I think Scotland are stretching the definition of a "progressive" tax:

Purchase price                  LBTT rate

Up to £135,000                  0%
Above £135,000 to £250,000      2%
Above £250,000 to £1,000,000    10%
Above £1,000,000 	        12%

What they mean: you can buy a property up to the value of £250,000. After that we'll hammer you with tax (on the extra price) so it isn't worth you buying (unless you are super-rich).

Very communist.

It will avoid the 'step functions' of Stamp Duty - and only a tiny (but no doubt noisy) number of purchasers will be affected:

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0045/00450762-910.jpg

The new Scottish land tax will make the old game of "how big a Scottish castle would my 1 bedroom ex-council flat in Peckham buy?" even more fun.

MarkHopkins said:

I think Scotland are stretching the definition of a "progressive" tax:

Purchase price                  LBTT rate

Up to £135,000                  0%
Above £135,000 to £250,000      2%
Above £250,000 to £1,000,000    10%
Above £1,000,000 	        12%

What they mean: you can buy a property up to the value of £250,000. After that we'll hammer you with tax (on the extra price) so it isn't worth you buying (unless you are super-rich).

Very communist.

Someone selling a £300,000 house is better off under this system.

The breakeven point is a fraction north of £320000.

Alistair said:

MarkHopkins said:

I think Scotland are stretching the definition of a "progressive" tax:

Purchase price                  LBTT rate

Up to £135,000                  0%
Above £135,000 to £250,000      2%
Above £250,000 to £1,000,000    10%
Above £1,000,000 	        12%

What they mean: you can buy a property up to the value of £250,000. After that we'll hammer you with tax (on the extra price) so it isn't worth you buying (unless you are super-rich).

Very communist.

Someone selling a £300,000 house is better off under this system.

The breakeven point is a fraction north of £320000.

Seems fair enough.

Tissue_Price said:

Neil said:

TGOHF said:

Easterross said:

The SNP has this afternoon introduced a new Land Tax in Scotland to replace Stamp Duty. It has 4 bands and above £250k it is 10%. That should go down with most house purchasers like a bag of sick. They have also cut health spending I believe from what I am seeing on Twitter!!

Is it 10% on the amount above 250k or the whole cost ?

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Government/Finance/scottishapproach/lbtt/lbtttaxcalculators

LOL @ "The Scottish Government has developed a tax calculator" linking to an Excel sheet that could be knocked up in under 10 minutes.

Well if it gives the right answer !

Break even point is £324,285

Tissue_Price said:

Neil said:

TGOHF said:

Easterross said:

The SNP has this afternoon introduced a new Land Tax in Scotland to replace Stamp Duty. It has 4 bands and above £250k it is 10%. That should go down with most house purchasers like a bag of sick. They have also cut health spending I believe from what I am seeing on Twitter!!

Is it 10% on the amount above 250k or the whole cost ?

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Government/Finance/scottishapproach/lbtt/lbtttaxcalculators

LOL @ "The Scottish Government has developed a tax calculator" linking to an Excel sheet that could be knocked up in under 10 minutes.

You rude person.

The Scottish CiviI Service has been working very hard to win the Independence Neverendum.

The Sovereign WiII of the Scottish PeopIe has been expressed but they got it wrong so the SNP isn't going to be bound by its promise to Iisten.

Neil said:

Tissue_Price said:

Neil said:

TGOHF said:

Easterross said:

The SNP has this afternoon introduced a new Land Tax in Scotland to replace Stamp Duty. It has 4 bands and above £250k it is 10%. That should go down with most house purchasers like a bag of sick. They have also cut health spending I believe from what I am seeing on Twitter!!

Is it 10% on the amount above 250k or the whole cost ?

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Government/Finance/scottishapproach/lbtt/lbtttaxcalculators

LOL @ "The Scottish Government has developed a tax calculator" linking to an Excel sheet that could be knocked up in under 10 minutes.

It seems to do the job.

Yes, it does. I was just mocking the "developed".

It's a pity [though understandable] that, having decided to reform the system, the Scottish Government have decided to maintain the penalisation of mobility that Stamp Duty represents.

Alistair said:

Tissue_Price said:

Purchase price                  LBTT rate

Up to £135,000                  0%
Above £135,000 to £250,000      2%
Above £250,000 to £1,000,000    10%
Above £1,000,000 	        12%

I must say, I am surprised at the 12%. 20% would seem to fit better.

Stated design goal was to be revenue neutral to current stamp duty. I suspect it will be slightly tax positive as there will no longer be the big artificial spike at the selling price of £250,000

Presumably the unstated design goal was to create lots of small winners and a few big losers.

I much prefer the marginal rate approach though.

Alistair said:

Tissue_Price said:

Purchase price                  LBTT rate

Up to £135,000                  0%
Above £135,000 to £250,000      2%
Above £250,000 to £1,000,000    10%
Above £1,000,000 	        12%

I must say, I am surprised at the 12%. 20% would seem to fit better.

Stated design goal was to be revenue neutral to current stamp duty. I suspect it will be slightly tax positive as there will no longer be the big artificial spike at the selling price of £250,000

In the English/Welsh system is the following the case:

Value - Tax

£124,999 £0
£125,000 £1250
£250,000 £2500
£250,001 £7500.03

Is that correct ?

Genuine question.

Pulpstar said:

Alistair said:

Tissue_Price said:

Purchase price                  LBTT rate

Up to £135,000                  0%
Above £135,000 to £250,000      2%
Above £250,000 to £1,000,000    10%
Above £1,000,000 	        12%

I must say, I am surprised at the 12%. 20% would seem to fit better.

Stated design goal was to be revenue neutral to current stamp duty. I suspect it will be slightly tax positive as there will no longer be the big artificial spike at the selling price of £250,000

In the English/Welsh system is the following the case:

Value - Tax

£124,999 £0
£125,000 £1250
£250,000 £2500
£250,001 £7500.03

Is that correct ?

Genuine question.

Yes it is, which is crazy, but there you are.

Alistair said:

Stated design goal was to be revenue neutral to current stamp duty. I suspect it will be slightly tax positive as there will no longer be the big artificial spike at the selling price of £250,000

It wiII very rapidIy become very revenue positive if threshoIds do not rise with prices.

>Socrates
>Allegations of the authorities covering up child abuse in Jersey:
>http://tompride.wordpress.com/2014/10/09/child-abuse-cover-up-witness-statements-sent-by-unregistered-post-and-opened/

ConspiraIoons R Us. Do they reaIIy think that a reaI spy wouIdn't pack it back up?

If England had the Scottish system - perhaps with lower marginal rates at the top end to reflect the slightly more centre-right general political position, and Scotland wanted to adopt a system with pretty much infinite gradations at £125k and £250k they'd be laughed out of court.

Itajai said:

AndyJS said:

O/T:

I wonder how many other people had a nasty shock when they heard the news today that, instead of checking people for ebola when they arrive in the UK, we're apparently relying on the origin country to check for the virus.

Is this because it would be racist to target travellers from West Africa?

It's happening here - travelers from the infected countries are to be questioned on arrival and have their temperature checked. The man who died in Dallas would not have been caught by this. It's more for PR and to calm the masses.

In a poll out yesterday 58% want flights stopped to and from West Africa.

Pulpstar said:

If England had the Scottish system - perhaps with lower marginal rates at the top end to reflect the slightly more centre-right general political position, and Scotland wanted to adopt a system with pretty much infinite gradations at £125k and £250k they'd be laughed out of court.

It used to be just 1% over £60,000. When Labour introduced more property tax in 1997, they created the rather strange system we have today.

MarkHopkins said:

Pulpstar said:

If England had the Scottish system - perhaps with lower marginal rates at the top end to reflect the slightly more centre-right general political position, and Scotland wanted to adopt a system with pretty much infinite gradations at £125k and £250k they'd be laughed out of court.

It used to be just 1% over £60,000. When Labour introduced more property tax in 1997, they created the rather strange system we have today.

It is a very strange system indeed - imagine if it was done that way with wages. Suddenly your pay rise would become a rather hefty pay cut !

TGOHF said:

chestnut said:

£250k property in England = £2,500 tax
£250k property in Scotland = £2,300 tax

£500k property in England = £15,000 tax
£500k property in Scotland = £27,300 tax

£2 million property in England = £100,000 tax
£2 million property in Scotland = £197,300 tax

That 500k figure is nasty...

From 15k to 20k when you step over the threshold from £500000 to £500001. Still considerably cheaper to doing so in Scotland.

sarissa Posts: 74
4:48PM

TheScreamingEagles said:

» show previous quotes
Indeed. No one has ever been given the title Malleus Londinium either

You can't hammer a sponge!