politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Corbyn: Alastair Meeks looks at the options for Labour’s ri

Another good article Mr Meeks - and agree about Tristram Hunt - yet he's getting remarkably little coverage which is surprising given the 'right wing media' (sic - often including the Guardian & New Statesman) determination to do Corbyn down.

P.S. For any others who like me hadn't heard of 'belling the cat': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belling_the_cat

Congratulations on an excellent, thought-provoking article, Mr Meeks.

When it rains, it pours…

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3416056/Labour-MP-Simon-Danczuk-reported-fraudulent-expenses-claims.html

CarlottaVance said:

Mind you, Tristram Hunt may not be long for the PLP:

Considering his recent dismal track record, few are surprised Tristram Hunt is rumoured to be one of the first Labour MPs to face a deselection battle as part of the Corbynistas’ revenge against their Right-wing opponents......

Some years ago, he described the increase in the number of bookmakers’ shops under the last Labour government as ‘a scandal’......

As part of this admirable crusade, he also condemned bookmakers William Hill for avoiding tax by basing some of its operations in the tax haven of Gibraltar.

So why, according to the latest MPs register of interests, has Hunt accepted £40,000 from Peter Coates, chairman of Bet365, one of Britain’s most successful gambling companies?

Thanks to some of its subsidiaries being based in Gibraltar, the company legally avoided £5 million in corporation tax in 2011 and £8million in 2010.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3414952/ANDREW-PIERCE-Anti-gambling-Tristram-Hunt-s-40k-bookie.html

Bet365 is based in Stoke, his constituency. Presumably that is the connection. The company is apparently the biggest private employer in the town, and its owners lifelong Labour supporters. It is also the sponsor of Stoke City FC.

I would not think that a connection with the company would do Hunt any harm at all in Stoke. Indeed most likely it would be seen as local roots, historically a weak spot for Hunt.

German commentariat now speculating how long has Merkel got. Regional elections in March a litmus test.

http://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/medien/tv-kritik/tv-kritik-hart-aber-fair-kein-scherbengericht-fuer-angela-merkel-14034490.html

A good article as always from Mr Meeks.

Corbyn is safe until he decides to leave, unless of course the famously regicidal PLP decide to depose him in the same way they deposed Brown and Miliband before him. Oh...

foxinsoxuk said:

CarlottaVance said:

Mind you, Tristram Hunt may not be long for the PLP:

Considering his recent dismal track record, few are surprised Tristram Hunt is rumoured to be one of the first Labour MPs to face a deselection battle as part of the Corbynistas’ revenge against their Right-wing opponents......

Some years ago, he described the increase in the number of bookmakers’ shops under the last Labour government as ‘a scandal’......

As part of this admirable crusade, he also condemned bookmakers William Hill for avoiding tax by basing some of its operations in the tax haven of Gibraltar.

So why, according to the latest MPs register of interests, has Hunt accepted £40,000 from Peter Coates, chairman of Bet365, one of Britain’s most successful gambling companies?

Thanks to some of its subsidiaries being based in Gibraltar, the company legally avoided £5 million in corporation tax in 2011 and £8million in 2010.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3414952/ANDREW-PIERCE-Anti-gambling-Tristram-Hunt-s-40k-bookie.html

Bet365 is based in Stoke, his constituency. Presumably that is the connection. The company is apparently the biggest private employer in the town, and its owners lifelong Labour supporters. It is also the sponsor of Stoke City FC.

I would not think that a connection with the company would do Hunt any harm at all in Stoke. Indeed most likely it would be seen as local roots, historically a weak spot for Hunt.

Very useful context, which makes the story a whole lot less controversial.

The deselections are clearly coming, the question is will the moderate MPs simply accept their fate or will they actually do anything about it?

peter_from_putney said:

" No doubt there were Tory wets who were confident that the Conservative party would return to their politics in due course after Margaret Thatcher had her time. Any such wets are still waiting 40 years later."

Eh ?

Not even in Heath's time did the Tories ever have a Chancellor who embarked upon wrecking the pension provisions of the middle classes as this Government is intent upon doing.

And this after Brown had raided the same private sector pension scheme members of tens of billions of pounds from the time of his very first budget.

Osborne will never be forgiven for this - if he can't get the country's borrowings under control as appears is the case, then he should do the fairest, most straightforward thing as past Chancellors have done and increase the rate of income tax, but it seems that no Chancellor dare go anywhere near that particular holy grail.

"High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/174d3822-bbad-11e5-bf7e-8a339b6f2164.html#ixzz3yKRApHba

The FT says
"The government’s case for reform is that the majority of pension tax relief — worth £21bn a year — currently goes to the most affluent in society.
The Pensions Policy Institute believes that 29 per cent of the relief goes to basic rate taxpayers, 56 per cent to higher rate taxpayers and 15 per cent to additional rate taxpayers. A single flat rate would be more “progressive”.

"High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/174d3822-bbad-11e5-bf7e-8a339b6f2164.html#ixzz3yKRQZjdn

Although scrapping the higher rate of pensions tax relief would impact traditional Tory supporters, Mr Osborne knows that they have nowhere else to go. Mr Corbyn’s Labour is hardly a more enticing prospect."

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/174d3822-bbad-11e5-bf7e-8a339b6f2164.html#axzz3yKQGTyRr

Sandpit said:

foxinsoxuk said:

CarlottaVance said:

Mind you, Tristram Hunt may not be long for the PLP:

Considering his recent dismal track record, few are surprised Tristram Hunt is rumoured to be one of the first Labour MPs to face a deselection battle as part of the Corbynistas’ revenge against their Right-wing opponents......

Some years ago, he described the increase in the number of bookmakers’ shops under the last Labour government as ‘a scandal’......

As part of this admirable crusade, he also condemned bookmakers William Hill for avoiding tax by basing some of its operations in the tax haven of Gibraltar.

So why, according to the latest MPs register of interests, has Hunt accepted £40,000 from Peter Coates, chairman of Bet365, one of Britain’s most successful gambling companies?

Thanks to some of its subsidiaries being based in Gibraltar, the company legally avoided £5 million in corporation tax in 2011 and £8million in 2010.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3414952/ANDREW-PIERCE-Anti-gambling-Tristram-Hunt-s-40k-bookie.html

Bet365 is based in Stoke, his constituency. Presumably that is the connection. The company is apparently the biggest private employer in the town, and its owners lifelong Labour supporters. It is also the sponsor of Stoke City FC.

I would not think that a connection with the company would do Hunt any harm at all in Stoke. Indeed most likely it would be seen as local roots, historically a weak spot for Hunt.

Very useful context, which makes the story a whole lot less controversial.

The deselections are clearly coming, the question is will the moderate MPs simply accept their fate or will they actually do anything about it?

Bet365 seems one of the better betting sites on android at least, loading quickly and having good menus and odds. They do seem to be keen on their local roots in Stoke and are more willing than most to pay UK tax. In the ethical stakes, I suspect that gambling companies are never going to win awards, but in comparison with the competition it seems ok.

I am not sure if deselections are quite the threat that some predict, apart from one or two like Danczuk. Labour moderates do need to do some cultivation of their members, but reconnecting with the grassroots is part of the rebuilding process.

I suspect that the political complexion of the Labour MPs in 2020 will be a little to the left of now, but the centre of gravity will still be well to the right of Corbyn.

Much as I like the article, surely the "wets" are back in charge of the Conservative Party?

The lack of clear beliefs as to the way ahead was painfully apparent in the recent leadership contest. Only Yvette Cooper had the outline of a coherent vision and that much too late in the day. Those that backed Liz Kendall, including the estimable Hopi Sen frankly embarrassed themselves.

We are having all the usual nonsense being trailed out about Osborne this morning but the fact remains that the deficit is now approaching 1/3 of what he inherited as a share of GDP. Much of that has come from tax increases such as VAT and some has come from the economic cycle but he has massively slowed the increase in public spending with brutal cuts in the unprotected areas. The fact that the job is not done and that "austerity" still has a long way to go is a major problem for the right wing of the Labour party.

Labour need to find a philosophy and purpose that is not linked to spending significant additional sums of public money. In my opinion the obvious answer is equality of opportunity. Educational performance in this country is shamefully correlated to economic status. That needs to change. The way that ZHC employees are treated is a disgrace. The defanging of the ET system with fees has greatly encouraged this abuse. Our banking sector remains too big to fail, uncompetitive and abuses the consumer.

Behind all this though is a bigger point. Labour used to have no problem with aspiration, achievement and success. Now there seems to be a hostility to such ideas and a desire to maintain the poor in their current circumstances by protecting their existing benefits, housing, entitlements etc even when they are trapping them in a life of poverty. If the Labour right can articulate the idea of a more egalitarian society which also celebrates success it could become a political force again.

@ logical song

Pension tax relief looks to be targetted, but should be part of a wider pensions review. Further disincentives to save are not needed!

Many people pay into personal pensions only at certain points of their lives. In a 40 year career they may well only pay in for a decade or two.

In their twenties and thirties most ABC1 people will be paying off student debt, and trying to afford a home and children. It is only when in their forties and fifties that they are likely to have the income and security to pay into a private pension. For most it is not a tax dodge, it is a part of the natural economic cycle over an earning life time. Most will have been basic rate taxpayers for the previous decades and will be again in retirement.

To point out the obvious: higher rate taxpayers pay more into their pensions because they are the ones who can afford to do so!

Sean_F said:

logical_song said:

peter_from_putney said:

" No doubt there were Tory wets who were confident that the Conservative party would return to their politics in due course after Margaret Thatcher had her time. Any such wets are still waiting 40 years later."

Eh ?

Not even in Heath's time did the Tories ever have a Chancellor who embarked upon wrecking the pension provisions of the middle classes as this Government is intent upon doing.

And this after Brown had raided the same private sector pension scheme members of tens of billions of pounds from the time of his very first budget.

Osborne will never be forgiven for this - if he can't get the country's borrowings under control as appears is the case, then he should do the fairest, most straightforward thing as past Chancellors have done and increase the rate of income tax, but it seems that no Chancellor dare go anywhere near that particular holy grail.

"High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/174d3822-bbad-11e5-bf7e-8a339b6f2164.html#ixzz3yKRApHba

The FT says
"The government’s case for reform is that the majority of pension tax relief — worth £21bn a year — currently goes to the most affluent in society.
The Pensions Policy Institute believes that 29 per cent of the relief goes to basic rate taxpayers, 56 per cent to higher rate taxpayers and 15 per cent to additional rate taxpayers. A single flat rate would be more “progressive”.

"High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/174d3822-bbad-11e5-bf7e-8a339b6f2164.html#ixzz3yKRQZjdn

Although scrapping the higher rate of pensions tax relief would impact traditional Tory supporters, Mr Osborne knows that they have nowhere else to go. Mr Corbyn’s Labour is hardly a more enticing prospect."

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/174d3822-bbad-11e5-bf7e-8a339b6f2164.html#axzz3yKQGTyRr

They do have somewhere else they can go. They can stay at home or vote UKIP.

And still the Conservatives will win in 2016. UKIP are in a state and Corbyn is unelectable.
And COrbyn will still be there.

Surely Alastair, there is an option 7 - leave Labour, and set up a home denuded of the politically bat-shit crazy? But that needs a fully formed prospectus which appeals to those who voted Labour from 1997 to 2010. The issue there is not defining themselves as distinct from Corbyn, but distinct from Cameron.

Simon Danczuk

It is understood Mr Danczuk has not seen two of his children for several years Yet made expenses claims for them
He accused Ipsa's rules of being 'too vague' and out of keeping with modern parenting.

Methinks Danczuk is out of keeping with being MP for Rochdale soon but nothing would surprise me with him.

Pulpstar said:

Sean_F said:

logical_song said:

peter_from_putney said:

" No doubt there were Tory wets who were confident that the Conservative party would return to their politics in due course after Margaret Thatcher had her time. Any such wets are still waiting 40 years later."

Eh ?

Not even in Heath's time did the Tories ever have a Chancellor who embarked upon wrecking the pension provisions of the middle classes as this Government is intent upon doing

Osborne will never be forgiven for this - if he can't get the country's borrowings under control as appears is the case, then he should do the fairest, most straightforward thing as past Chancellors have done and increase the rate of income tax, but it seems that no Chancellor dare go anywhere near that particular holy grail.

"High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/174d3822-bbad-11e5-bf7e-8a339b6f2164.html#ixzz3yKRApHba

The FT says
"The government’s case for reform is that the majority of pension tax relief — worth £21bn a year — currently goes to the most affluent in society.
The Pensions Policy Institute believes that 29 per cent of the relief goes to basic rate taxpayers, 56 per cent to higher rate taxpayers and 15 per cent to additional rate taxpayers. A single flat rate would be more “progressive”.

"High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/174d3822-bbad-11e5-bf7e-8a339b6f2164.html#ixzz3yKRQZjdn

Although scrapping the higher rate of pensions tax relief would impact traditional Tory supporters, Mr Osborne knows that they have nowhere else to go. Mr Corbyn’s Labour is hardly a more enticing prospect."

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/174d3822-bbad-11e5-bf7e-8a339b6f2164.html#axzz3yKQGTyRr

They do have somewhere else they can go. They can stay at home or vote UKIP.

And still the Conservatives will win in 2016. UKIP are in a state and Corbyn is unelectable.
And COrbyn will still be there.

So they will, but it's a short-term cynical calculation for a (by no means guaranteed) tactical win.

One day, the Conservatives will be out of power. They will need both donations, members and supporters to rebuild, pound the streets and make their case in the media and in the country to regain it.

They might find they have very few turning out for them.

AlastairMeeks said:

DavidL said:

The lack of clear beliefs as to the way ahead was painfully apparent in the recent leadership contest. Only Yvette Cooper had the outline of a coherent vision and that much too late in the day. Those that backed Liz Kendall, including the estimable Hopi Sen frankly embarrassed themselves.

We are having all the usual nonsense being trailed out about Osborne this morning but the fact remains that the deficit is now approaching 1/3 of what he inherited as a share of GDP. Much of that has come from tax increases such as VAT and some has come from the economic cycle but he has massively slowed the increase in public spending with brutal cuts in the unprotected areas. The fact that the job is not done and that "austerity" still has a long way to go is a major problem for the right wing of the Labour party.

Labour need to find a philosophy and purpose that is not linked to spending significant additional sums of public money. In my opinion the obvious answer is equality of opportunity. Educational performance in this country is shamefully correlated to economic status. That needs to change. The way that ZHC employees are treated is a disgrace. The defanging of the ET system with fees has greatly encouraged this abuse. Our banking sector remains too big to fail, uncompetitive and abuses the consumer.

Behind all this though is a bigger point. Labour used to have no problem with aspiration, achievement and success. Now there seems to be a hostility to such ideas and a desire to maintain the poor in their current circumstances by protecting their existing benefits, housing, entitlements etc even when they are trapping them in a life of poverty. If the Labour right can articulate the idea of a more egalitarian society which also celebrates success it could become a political force again.

I do have a theory about Labour and aspiration. That may be the subject of a thread at a later date.

It is painful how it has become a dirty word in Scotland in particular. A generation ago there was respect and admiration for those that got on, got qualifications, built careers and provided well for their family. Now they are just assumed to be selfish bastards who think they are better than those who can't be bothered. It is a deeply corrosive attitude built on cynicism, celebrity culture and ultimately hopelessness.

An egalitarian state is about good education, good training, equality of opportunity and a tilt of the tiller against vested interest and inherited advantage. It is still needed.

not_on_fire said:

Casino_Royale said:

logical_song said:

peter_from_putney said:

" No doubt there were Tory wets who were confident that the Conservative party would return to their politics in due course after Margaret Thatcher had her time. Any such wets are still waiting 40 years later."

Eh ?

Not even in Heath's time did the Tories ever have a Chancellor who embarked upon wrecking the pension provisions of the middle classes as this Government is intent upon doing.

And this after Brown had raided the same private sector pension scheme members of tens of billions of pounds from the time of his very first budget.

Osborne will never be forgiven for this - if he can't get the country's borrowings under control as appears is the case, then he should do the fairest, most straightforward thing as past Chancellors have done and increase the rate of income tax, but it seems that no Chancellor dare go anywhere near that particular holy grail.

"High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/174d3822-bbad-11e5-bf7e-8a339b6f2164.html#ixzz3yKRApHba

The FT says
"The government’s case for reform is that the majority of pension tax relief — worth £21bn a year — currently goes to the most affluent in society.
The Pensions Policy Institute believes that 29 per cent of the relief goes to basic rate taxpayers, 56 per cent to higher rate taxpayers and 15 per cent to additional rate taxpayers. A single flat rate would be more “progressive”.

"High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/174d3822-bbad-11e5-bf7e-8a339b6f2164.html#ixzz3yKRQZjdn

Although scrapping the higher rate of pensions tax relief would impact traditional Tory supporters, Mr Osborne knows that they have nowhere else to go. Mr Corbyn’s Labour is hardly a more enticing prospect."

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/174d3822-bbad-11e5-bf7e-8a339b6f2164.html#axzz3yKQGTyRr

It's exactly that sort of thinking that has absolutely infuriated traditional Tory supporters.

It's a natural consequence of FPTP, the system Tory supporters fought so hard to keep. And the GE2015 election showed the strategy works.

It's a natural consequence of George Osborne.

DavidL said:

AlastairMeeks said:

DavidL said:

The lack of clear beliefs as to the way ahead was painfully apparent in the recent leadership contest. Only Yvette Cooper had the outline of a coherent vision and that much too late in the day. Those that backed Liz Kendall, including the estimable Hopi Sen frankly embarrassed themselves.

We are having all the usual nonsense being trailed out about Osborne this morning but the fact remains that the deficit is now approaching 1/3 of what he inherited as a share of GDP. Much of that has come from tax increases such as VAT and some has come from the economic cycle but he has massively slowed the increase in public spending with brutal cuts in the unprotected areas. The fact that the job is not done and that "austerity" still has a long way to go is a major problem for the right wing of the Labour party.

Labour need to find a philosophy and purpose that is not linked to spending significant additional sums of public money. In my opinion the obvious answer is equality of opportunity. Educational performance in this country is shamefully correlated to economic status. That needs to change. The way that ZHC employees are treated is a disgrace. The defanging of the ET system with fees has greatly encouraged this abuse. Our banking sector remains too big to fail, uncompetitive and abuses the consumer.

Behind all this though is a bigger point. Labour used to have no problem with aspiration, achievement and success. Now there seems to be a hostility to such ideas and a desire to maintain the poor in their current circumstances by protecting their existing benefits, housing, entitlements etc even when they are trapping them in a life of poverty. If the Labour right can articulate the idea of a more egalitarian society which also celebrates success it could become a political force again.

I do have a theory about Labour and aspiration. That may be the subject of a thread at a later date.

It is painful how it has become a dirty word in Scotland in particular. A generation ago there was respect and admiration for those that got on, got qualifications, built careers and provided well for their family. Now they are just assumed to be selfish bastards who think they are better than those who can't be bothered. It is a deeply corrosive attitude built on cynicism, celebrity culture and ultimately hopelessness.

An egalitarian state is about good education, good training, equality of opportunity and a tilt of the tiller against vested interest and inherited advantage. It is still needed.

+1

Jim Messina, consultant to the Obama and Cameron re-election campaigns, is apparently set to join Remain

foxinsoxuk said:

@ logical song

Pension tax relief looks to be targetted, but should be part of a wider pensions review. Further disincentives to save are not needed!

Many people pay into personal pensions only at certain points of their lives. In a 40 year career they may well only pay in for a decade or two.

In their twenties and thirties most ABC1 people will be paying off student debt, and trying to afford a home and children. It is only when in their forties and fifties that they are likely to have the income and security to pay into a private pension. For most it is not a tax dodge, it is a part of the natural economic cycle over an earning life time. Most will have been basic rate taxpayers for the previous decades and will be again in retirement.

To point out the obvious: higher rate taxpayers pay more into their pensions because they are the ones who can afford to do so!

That's exactly right.

I hasten to add that I doubt it will be the wealthiest Conservative supporters who have a problem with this. They were far more worried about things like the mansion tax.

It will be those who work hard, long hours with a lot of responsibility, and have made a lot of sacrifices along the way, to build a professional or business career that puts them in the 45-70k income bracket and are trying their best to provide for their retirement. They won't necessarily have many other assets apart from the family home and their pension pot.

Of course, they assiduously pay tax (and a lot of it) and are clearly politically expendable in the short-term, which is what makes them such a tempting target.

Cameron used to talk about standing by people who 'do the right thing'.

If that is so he should veto this.

Start the bus.

DavidL said:

AlastairMeeks said:

DavidL said:

The lack of clear beliefs as to the way ahead was painfully apparent in the recent leadership contest. Only Yvette Cooper had the outline of a coherent vision and that much too late in the day. Those that backed Liz Kendall, including the estimable Hopi Sen frankly embarrassed themselves.

We are having all the usual nonsense being trailed out about Osborne this morning but the fact remains that the deficit is now approaching 1/3 of what he inherited as a share of GDP. Much of that has come from tax increases such as VAT and some has come from the economic cycle but he has massively slowed the increase in public spending with brutal cuts in the unprotected areas. The fact that the job is not done and that "austerity" still has a long way to go is a major problem for the right wing of the Labour party.

Labour need to find a philosophy and purpose that is not linked to spending significant additional sums of public money. In my opinion the obvious answer is equality of opportunity. Educational performance in this country is shamefully correlated to economic status. That needs to change. The way that ZHC employees are treated is a disgrace. The defanging of the ET system with fees has greatly encouraged this abuse. Our banking sector remains too big to fail, uncompetitive and abuses the consumer.

Behind all this though is a bigger point. Labour used to have no problem with aspiration, achievement and success. Now there seems to be a hostility to such ideas and a desire to maintain the poor in their current circumstances by protecting their existing benefits, housing, entitlements etc even when they are trapping them in a life of poverty. If the Labour right can articulate the idea of a more egalitarian society which also celebrates success it could become a political force again.

I do have a theory about Labour and aspiration. That may be the subject of a thread at a later date.

It is painful how it has become a dirty word in Scotland in particular. A generation ago there was respect and admiration for those that got on, got qualifications, built careers and provided well for their family. Now they are just assumed to be selfish bastards who think they are better than those who can't be bothered. It is a deeply corrosive attitude built on cynicism, celebrity culture and ultimately hopelessness.

An egalitarian state is about good education, good training, equality of opportunity and a tilt of the tiller against vested interest and inherited advantage. It is still needed.

Agree except most Scottish celebrities have to make an effort to become a celebrity and live in Surrey or the Bahamas, not Scotland

Scottish Tory Surge KLAXON

@davidtorrance: Although I still have a feeling we've heard all this before, there's (modest) evidence of a (modest) Tory revival: https://t.co/rL1lvbvaZY

foxinsoxuk said:

Would Corbyn lose a new leadership election? It may depend upon who stands, but even if he won again it would most likely be by a smaller margin than last year. Would that lose him some credibility?

The Labour centrists need to act soon, or their moment will be lost.

Yes, it would lose him some credibility, in the same way that Major lost credibility when Redward polled over a quarter of the Tory MPs in 1995 and Thatcher lost credibility when sixty refused to back her in 1989. Both sailed on though. True, both sailed on to defeat, Major at the hands of the electorate and Thatcher by her party the next year, but they sailed on all the same. Corbyn would do likewise. The left would regard a victory - any victory - as both a renewed mandate and a declaration of outright war from the right (which would ignore the changes they'd been making but that's beside the point).

This is a good article. One point I'd disagree with, though, is the Thatcher/wets analogy. Thatcher was demonstrably electable. Corbyn has, at the very least, not demonstrated he's electable... indeed, there's a good argument he isn't at all electable.

The Tory wets believed Thatcher would never win an election, and then that she would be a one term failure. If she had, they may very well have been right that the pendulum would swing back. As it happens, they were very wrong and it didn't. But it wasn't a totally ludicrous belief in the late 70s or early 80s recession, and it's a rather less ludicrous position for Labour moderates now.

I'd a good debate on Twitter about this, and liking your own voters or potential converts.

IMHO, too many in Labour dislike their own side and look down on them/want to fix their vulgar ways. Tories smile on anyone who wants to get on.

AlastairMeeks said:

DavidL said:

The lack of clear beliefs as to the way ahead was painfully apparent in the recent leadership contest. Only Yvette Cooper had the outline of a coherent vision and that much too late in the day. Those that backed Liz Kendall, including the estimable Hopi Sen frankly embarrassed themselves.

We are having all the usual nonsense being trailed out about Osborne this morning but the fact remains that the deficit is now approaching 1/3 of what he inherited as a share of GDP. Much of that has come from tax increases such as VAT and some has come from the economic cycle but he has massively slowed the increase in public spending with brutal cuts in the unprotected areas. The fact that the job is not done and that "austerity" still has a long way to go is a major problem for the right wing of the Labour party.

Labour need to find a philosophy and purpose that is not linked to spending significant additional sums of public money. In my opinion the obvious answer is equality of opportunity. Educational performance in this country is shamefully correlated to economic status. That needs to change. The way that ZHC employees are treated is a disgrace. The defanging of the ET system with fees has greatly encouraged this abuse. Our banking sector remains too big to fail, uncompetitive and abuses the consumer.

Behind all this though is a bigger point. Labour used to have no problem with aspiration, achievement and success. Now there seems to be a hostility to such ideas and a desire to maintain the poor in their current circumstances by protecting their existing benefits, housing, entitlements etc even when they are trapping them in a life of poverty. If the Labour right can articulate the idea of a more egalitarian society which also celebrates success it could become a political force again.

I do have a theory about Labour and aspiration. That may be the subject of a thread at a later date.

Casino_Royale said:

foxinsoxuk said:

@ logical song

Pension tax relief looks to be targetted, but should be part of a wider pensions review. Further disincentives to save are not needed!

Many people pay into personal pensions only at certain points of their lives. In a 40 year career they may well only pay in for a decade or two.

In their twenties and thirties most ABC1 people will be paying off student debt, and trying to afford a home and children. It is only when in their forties and fifties that they are likely to have the income and security to pay into a private pension. For most it is not a tax dodge, it is a part of the natural economic cycle over an earning life time. Most will have been basic rate taxpayers for the previous decades and will be again in retirement.

To point out the obvious: higher rate taxpayers pay more into their pensions because they are the ones who can afford to do so!

That's exactly right.

I hasten to add that I doubt it will be the wealthiest Conservative supporters who have a problem with this. They were far more worried about things like the mansion tax.

It will be those who work hard, long hours with a lot of responsibility, and have made a lot of sacrifices along the way, to build a professional or business career that puts them in the 45-70k income bracket and are trying their best to provide for their retirement. They won't necessarily have many other assets apart from the family home and their pension pot.

Of course, they assiduously pay tax (and a lot of it) and are clearly politically expendable in the short-term, which is what makes them such a tempting target.

Cameron used to talk about standing by people who 'do the right thing'.

If that is so he should veto this.

It will be interesting to see what actually gets proposed in the Budget.

Increasing the 40% tax threshold by £10k will make anyone earning £50-100k £2k better off for example, maybe also a flat 30% relief on pension contributions will encourage saving further down the income scale - as govt will effectively top up by 10% any pension contributions by standard rate taxpayers.

Mr. Moses, quite.

In the elections this century, Labour has had two outright majorities, both far larger than the current Conservative one, the Conservatives have had one outright majority, and there's been a Hung Parliament.

Bleating about the system is pathetic.

Mr. Herdson, the German electorate appears to have adopted the boiling frog technique.

foxinsoxuk said:

@ logical song

Pension tax relief looks to be targetted, but should be part of a wider pensions review. Further disincentives to save are not needed!

Many people pay into personal pensions only at certain points of their lives. In a 40 year career they may well only pay in for a decade or two.

In their twenties and thirties most ABC1 people will be paying off student debt, and trying to afford a home and children. It is only when in their forties and fifties that they are likely to have the income and security to pay into a private pension. For most it is not a tax dodge, it is a part of the natural economic cycle over an earning life time. Most will have been basic rate taxpayers for the previous decades and will be again in retirement.

To point out the obvious: higher rate taxpayers pay more into their pensions because they are the ones who can afford to do so!

And they need less incentive to do so.

Bluntly speaking, there is only a limited amount of money to go around. Higher rate pension tax relief is a huge amount of money. Those who are the best off should contribute. It will hit me personally quite badly (I only have a small pension as have been busy paying down my mortgages) but I don't see why I should get relief at 40% while Joe Bloggs only gets 20%.

Fairer and simpler to equalise the rate.

Six down now.
Edit: Seven.

HYUFD said:

foxinsoxuk said:

@ logical song

Pension tax relief looks to be targetted, but should be part of a wider pensions review. Further disincentives to save are not needed!

Many people pay into personal pensions only at certain points of their lives. In a 40 year career they may well only pay in for a decade or two.

In their twenties and thirties most ABC1 people will be paying off student debt, and trying to afford a home and children. It is only when in their forties and fifties that they are likely to have the income and security to pay into a private pension. For most it is not a tax dodge, it is a part of the natural economic cycle over an earning life time. Most will have been basic rate taxpayers for the previous decades and will be again in retirement.

To point out the obvious: higher rate taxpayers pay more into their pensions because they are the ones who can afford to do so!

Most employers now have contributory workplace pensions and the government is pushing to expand that further so people will tend to have started paying into pensions in their 20s or 30s

I contribute to one of these schemes because I have to.. It might buy me a cup of coffee in retirement,

Sean_F said:

Much as I like the article, surely the "wets" are back in charge of the Conservative Party?

I did wonder about that, and in contemporary terms, that's true. But in the classic Butler-Macmillan-(post-U-turn)-Heath terms, it's not. The reforms to state service provision, the restriction on government spending increases, the voicing of his willingness to lead Britain out of the EU (never mind if he means it; that he at least considers it a negotiating tactic would be anathema to the wets), all place him way to the right of the old Wet Wing, which has now largely expired.

Never mind making it to the close, at this rate, England won't make it to the end of the first hour.

Charles said:

foxinsoxuk said:

@ logical song

Pension tax relief looks to be targetted, but should be part of a wider pensions review. Further disincentives to save are not needed!

Many people pay into personal pensions only at certain points of their lives. In a 40 year career they may well only pay in for a decade or two.

In their twenties and thirties most ABC1 people will be paying off student debt, and trying to afford a home and children. It is only when in their forties and fifties that they are likely to have the income and security to pay into a private pension. For most it is not a tax dodge, it is a part of the natural economic cycle over an earning life time. Most will have been basic rate taxpayers for the previous decades and will be again in retirement.

To point out the obvious: higher rate taxpayers pay more into their pensions because they are the ones who can afford to do so!

And they need less incentive to do so.

Bluntly speaking, there is only a limited amount of money to go around. Higher rate pension tax relief is a huge amount of money. Those who are the best off should contribute. It will hit me personally quite badly (I only have a small pension as have been busy paying down my mortgages) but I don't see why I should get relief at 40% while Joe Bloggs only gets 20%.

Fairer and simpler to equalise the rate.

They are not the best off and they already pay a huge amount of tax. I note you say mortgages (plural) which suggests you are indeed very well off - I just have one and a small semi-detached two bedroom house.

I think it's got very little to do with the deficit and a lot to do with Osborne making a play for what he calls the centre ground.

He thinks that means progressive politics and redistribution.

Sandpit said:

Casino_Royale said:

foxinsoxuk said:

@ logical song

Pension tax relief looks to be targetted, but should be part of a wider pensions review. Further disincentives to save are not needed!

Many people pay into personal pensions only at certain points of their lives. In a 40 year career they may well only pay in for a decade or two.

In their twenties and thirties most ABC1 people will be paying off student debt, and trying to afford a home and children. It is only when in their forties and fifties that they are likely to have the income and security to pay into a private pension. For most it is not a tax dodge, it is a part of the natural economic cycle over an earning life time. Most will have been basic rate taxpayers for the previous decades and will be again in retirement.

To point out the obvious: higher rate taxpayers pay more into their pensions because they are the ones who can afford to do so!

That's exactly right.

I hasten to add that I doubt it will be the wealthiest Conservative supporters who have a problem with this. They were far more worried about things like the mansion tax.

It will be those who work hard, long hours with a lot of responsibility, and have made a lot of sacrifices along the way, to build a professional or business career that puts them in the 45-70k income bracket and are trying their best to provide for their retirement. They won't necessarily have many other assets apart from the family home and their pension pot.

Of course, they assiduously pay tax (and a lot of it) and are clearly politically expendable in the short-term, which is what makes them such a tempting target.

Cameron used to talk about standing by people who 'do the right thing'.

If that is so he should veto this.

It will be interesting to see what actually gets proposed in the Budget.

Increasing the 40% tax threshold by £10k will make anyone earning £50-100k £2k better off for example, maybe also a flat 30% relief on pension contributions will encourage saving further down the income scale - as govt will effectively top up by 10% any pension contributions by standard rate taxpayers.

He may well do that in response to political pressure. The reason he leaked this in January is because he wasn't sure how much resistance he's get so he's pressing the bruise to see how much Middle England go 'ouch'.

Regardless, I will move heaven and earth now to stop him becoming leader.

blackburn63 said:

david_herdson said:

blackburn63 said:

I've just been reading about the ex copper and Liberal candidate Brian Paddick, he's been to court accusing a cabbie of calling him a faggot, the cabbie says Paddick called him fat.

This is what we've come to, grown men clogging up courts and costing us money over some ridiculous name calling. Jail them both for wasting police time.

What does it have to do with the police? Surely slander / defamation is a civil matter?

I was assuming, perhaps wrongly, that the incident was reported to the police. Either way for it to go to court at taxpayers expense is a complete waste of time and money.

Do you agree Mr Herdson?

If it is at taxpayers' expense, and if the details reported are correct, then yes.

I think the key period for a move against Corbyn will be after the May elections. The results in Wales and Scotland will be particularly important. The evidence of his toxicity to voters should be clear to all but the most deluded. The Labour right will probably continue being quiet until then.

Patrick said:

Great article Alastair. I remember very clearly my school history teacher telling us one day (when we were doing the Peasants' Revolt!) that revolutions usually fail because they fail to articulate what comes after. You must rebel FOR something rather than AGAINST something. You need a clear goal and a vision. The Labour right will fail because no matter how much they are against Corbyn they remain for nothing. We saw in the leader debates that the 'moderates' are empty vessels. Suits with focus group results and shiny haircuts but no dream, no vision, no desire, no founding principles. It is the right of the party that is in crisis not the left. They are bankrupt in every way - financially, morally, intellectually, politically and in terms of voter appeal. They might as well indeed join the Tory left.

(and BTW the only thing in your article I'd pick on is the comment about Tory wets - Dave is the queen of metrosexual, pantywaist, EU loving, socially liberal sponginess. He's no John Redwood. And he's firmly in power.)

Excellent post Patrick , not often you get so clear and accurate precis on here.

@Patrick didn't appear on the most recent Poster of the Year nominations list, as selected by the site owner. I'd have voted for him, great posts here again and again.

malcolmg said:

Patrick said:

Great article Alastair. I remember very clearly my school history teacher telling us one day (when we were doing the Peasants' Revolt!) that revolutions usually fail because they fail to articulate what comes after. You must rebel FOR something rather than AGAINST something. You need a clear goal and a vision. The Labour right will fail because no matter how much they are against Corbyn they remain for nothing. We saw in the leader debates that the 'moderates' are empty vessels. Suits with focus group results and shiny haircuts but no dream, no vision, no desire, no founding principles. It is the right of the party that is in crisis not the left. They are bankrupt in every way - financially, morally, intellectually, politically and in terms of voter appeal. They might as well indeed join the Tory left.

(and BTW the only thing in your article I'd pick on is the comment about Tory wets - Dave is the queen of metrosexual, pantywaist, EU loving, socially liberal sponginess. He's no John Redwood. And he's firmly in power.)

Excellent post Patrick , not often you get so clear and accurate precis on here.

Scott_P said:

Scottish Tory Surge KLAXON

@davidtorrance: Although I still have a feeling we've heard all this before, there's (modest) evidence of a (modest) Tory revival: https://t.co/rL1lvbvaZY

Torrance is such an odious balloon, why is he always in media pontificating. He indeed looks like your average nasty Tory wimp and certainly talks the bollox but surely they have better fan boys than him.

Casino_Royale said:

Charles said:

foxinsoxuk said:

@ logical song

Pension tax relief looks to be targetted, but should be part of a wider pensions review. Further disincentives to save are not needed!

Many people pay into personal pensions only at certain points of their lives. In a 40 year career they may well only pay in for a decade or two.

In their twenties and thirties most ABC1 people will be paying off student debt, and trying to afford a home and children. It is only when in their forties and fifties that they are likely to have the income and security to pay into a private pension. For most it is not a tax dodge, it is a part of the natural economic cycle over an earning life time. Most will have been basic rate taxpayers for the previous decades and will be again in retirement.

To point out the obvious: higher rate taxpayers pay more into their pensions because they are the ones who can afford to do so!

And they need less incentive to do so.

Bluntly speaking, there is only a limited amount of money to go around. Higher rate pension tax relief is a huge amount of money. Those who are the best off should contribute. It will hit me personally quite badly (I only have a small pension as have been busy paying down my mortgages) but I don't see why I should get relief at 40% while Joe Bloggs only gets 20%.

Fairer and simpler to equalise the rate.

They are not the best off and they already pay a huge amount of tax. I note you say mortgages (plural) which suggests you are indeed very well off - I just have one and a small semi-detached two bedroom house.

I think it's got very little to do with the deficit and a lot to do with Osborne making a play for what he calls the centre ground.

He thinks that means progressive politics and redistribution.

I view pension saving as deferring some of your income now until a later age when you need it - ie retirement. If you happen to be a lower taxpayer at that time well fair enough, at least you've not lived for the 'now' and taken some responsibility to ensure you have some pension savings for your retirement.

Why should you be double-taxed for deferring some of your income?

ThomasNashe said:

I think the key period for a move against Corbyn will be after the May elections. The results in Wales and Scotland will be particularly important. The evidence of his toxicity to voters should be clear to all but the most deluded. The Labour right will probably continue being quiet until then.

The votes in Scotland and Wales will be put down to local factors, and to an extent, rightly so. The voters there are not voting for or against Corbyn (nor, yet, his candidates). Unlike many English council elections, they are increasingly seen as elections in their own right rather than as proxy opinion polls for Westminster. Furthermore, there are good reasons in both Scotland and Wales why Labour might do poorly.

Of course, the Labour right might try to move anyway, and the English council elections may be poor as well - which would be harder to write off - but the Corbynites have their excuses ready.

The key election is London. If Khan loses then the electoral case against Corbyn is powerful; if he wins, losses elsewhere will be forgotten.