Reid soars ahead of Cameron on YouGov’s BrandIndex tracker
August 20th, 2006
-
Home Secretary’s “positive impression” rating up 15% in eleven days
The latest YouGov BrandIndex data published on the UK Polling Report site shows a massive boost for the Home Secretary, John Reid (GREEN) since he came to prominence over his handling of the alleged terror plots.
As can be seen from the chart he is well ahead of his potential Labour leadership rival, Gordon Brown (BROWN) and now enjoys poll ratings ahead of the Tory leader, David Cameron (BLUE), whose figures continue to slip.
It should be noted that these are based on whether respondents have a “positive impression” of the named politician and are not the “good job - bad job” figures that YouGov has been providing PBC with over the past few weeks.
These are based on a five day rolling average of surveys of 600 people each day. The sample size in therefore 3,000.
-
Although these figures should be treated with great caution they are likely to have the effect of helping John Reid establish a position where he could challenge Gordon Brown.
What we really need are proper vote intention figures with Brown and Reid named alongside Cameron and Campbell. Let’s hope that ICM and Populus, due out in the next couple of weeks, will ask those questions.
My strong view is that if Reid is polling better on such a measure against the Chancellor then he would have a serious chance of challenging for the leadership. Labour wants a winner and will be influenced by the polls.
The challenge for Reid is maintaining this position because as many ex-Home Secretaries can vouch - the job is not normally good for a career.
In the betting the best Brown price has eased a touch to 0.46/1.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
A clarification on the methodology of this poll - I took part in this poll; you were not presented with individual politicians and asked to say whether you had a negative or positive opinion of them; you were presented with a rather long list of politicians and asked to indicate which on the list you had a positive opinion of, and then the next question was the same list, where you were asked to indicate which you had a negative opinion of.
I suspect this skews the figures to the extremes somewhat.
I know it looks great on the graph, but given that this is a different question asked in a different format, is it not a bit disingenuous to make it directly comparable to the previous question?
re 1. I hope that Anthony Wells who works for YouGov as well as running UK Polling Report will answer some of the detail. My chart is from his site but with some pictures on!
Gordon Brown takes quite a lot of stick on PB.
I quite like him.
I think that he may have more of an understanding of “ordinary folk” than most top politicians.
He may be dour; but is that a bad thing in a politician? (Especially for a Chancellor of the Exchequer)
His background is much less privileged than most senior politicians – he may understand some of the struggles that us “non privileged” have.
He does not seem to be interested in being wealthy or power for it’s own sake. His motivation must be mixed but it contains a strong work ethic and a desire to “serve.”
I think that he would be a much better PM than Tony Blair.
(Not that I will ever be voting Labour – even if GB is their leader)
There is considerable volatility to Reid’s position. True he has “soared” following his wall-to-wall media coverage recently (in the broad absence of the others, he can hardly be expected to have done differently), but it won’t take much for his stock to plummet again - either a prisoner fiasco or some other Home Office diaster; they’ve been as regular as buses recently.
I still think that Blair will do all he can to hang on until the 10th anniversary (maybe even annouce it this conference?) and go at next year’s conference. My betting position broadly refelcts this view. I have a safety net bet of last quarter this year, in case PC Plod turns up anything really fishy.
Pretty fair comment at 3 from MoanR IMO - welcome to the site.
Thanks to Mike for the very swift update. The Anthony Wells site also shows Alan Johnson improving (to -8) and Hilary Benn on -4, so john reid isn’t alone in the stratospheric heights of politicians with “only” single-digit negatives. I’m not quite sure what to make of the last para in Anthony Wells’ report, though. He reminds us that the survey is normally a bit biased to younger higher-income people, since it’s on the back of a survey designed to find people who want to buy plasma TVs and the like. Then he adds that on this occasion it was calibrated by another survey designed to bne representative. Does this mean that the figures shown are adjusted (I assume it does), and if so were the earlier figures adjusted retrospectively using the same formula, or are they non-comparable?
2 Mike S. I’m having a splash and dash on Reid on the exchanges ….come into my web ……
re 6. I’m not going to be enticed into a “web” where you are having a “slash”.
GB gets plenty wrong. But even his opponents recognise that there are some areas where he is competent.
Apart from talking a good game, what has ‘Dr’ Reid achieved? What is he good at? What’s his USP? The only obvious one is that he is not GB.
The bookies are offering 10-1 against his being the next leader. About the same as Fulham winning at Man Utd this pm, which is a much better bet.
7 Mike S. I’m an exceedingly careful directional semi-house trained pole cat !
“MeGov” @ 1: the graph is based on daily figures using the same question, not the job approval figures that Mike has published recently. The effect of the question design is uneven actually - people seem just as willing to express negative opinions regardless of whether you ask it using a list or using individual questions for each politicians, but are less ready to express positive opinion.
Nick @ 5: Yep - all the figures shown have been calibrated to take account of the skewed sample, including all the figures used to make up the graph.
8 david k. Didn’t Fulham win at Man Utd in recent memory ?
4. A very good point. Given the way in which the question was framed, the figures will surely be skewed by which politicians have the best name recognition - something that Reid will have picked up markedly on during August.
A word of warning for those considering Reid as the next PM: there were over 40 home secretaries during the 20th century; only two made it to Number 10 - Churchill and Callaghan, and neither came straight from the Home Office (Churchill’s time there was way in the past by 1940 and Callaghan had experienced opposition and the Foreign Office in between).
6. You can’t have splashed much, Jack. Not much liquidity in this market.
Nick Palmer So Gordon the Grouch has slipped to -23.
But take comfort. From what Anthony Wells and MeGov say and the fact that coincides with holidays, paternity leave and a chance for Reid to be in the limelight, then it is not particularly meaningful.
What did Benn and Johnson do to move to that ’stratospheric’ position and so far of Brown?
Nope, not a measure that I can take seriously.
If Reid and Benn and Johnson were matched with Brown and Cameron as potential PM, that is a poll that might be useful and relevant.
is cameron down again - doesnt that mean that roger was right and mike was wrong.
13 Peter P. It’s old age … just dribbling !
I’m looking for a decent price for a draw at Old Trafford this afternoon …. looks like 7/2 ish best on offer.
Just a loop around which billions of pounds worth of goods were continuously and lucratively revolving as part of a VAT fraud that has now grown so extensive and complex that it has begun to distort the entire British economy.
Another multi-billion pound loss our Invisible Chancellor is building for us all. just think what he could do as PM.
16 Moi. Actually there’s plenty of 9/2 on the draw and 12/1 widely available on a Fulham win !! Exchanges slightly better.
Benn and Johnson have always been around the same position. Johnson is there largely because of low recognition (it isn’t skewed towards those with high recognition - in fact it’s skewed against them! People with low recognition appear to have low negatives simply because no-one has any opinion of them). Hilary Benn has low recognition as well, but out of those expressing an opinion does seem comparatively popular.
If look at the proportion of positive impressions of each politician, ignoring people with no opinion of them, then Reid still comes top, but you’ll note that Johnson comes lower - it’s just low recogition that makes him appear popular.
Reid 48% positive (i.e. 48% of the 51% who expressed an opinion were positive)
Cameron 45%
Benn 41%
Brown 35%
Campbell 28%
Johnson 27%
Blair 26%
Before the arrests 31% of those expressing an opinion about Reid were positive.
Well you can see Reid’s rating has jumped quite recently - and we know what happened recently.
Whether that will help him in the long term is a different matter. When someone is “popular” because of their handling of a situation, that can turn on them quite quickly. Even if that event is fine, people may lose interest after a while.
Though it would be more interesting if there was some real competition in the leadership campaign, so I won’t wish Reid any ill-will at this point.
Oops, Robin was there already with a more fluent post - well done, I agree wholeheartedly with you.
19 Anthony I can see that by taking the score and the quantity of responses come tracking may be possible, but as these headline percentages are the proportion of those that bothered to comment on each politician, how can this set be used for any comparative purpose?
re 15. If the “Good job - bad job” figures has moved in the same direction then Roget will have been proved right I wrong. Thankfully there is no money at stake. Well done Roger.
well, it’s not a surprise that Reid’s numbers went up, isn’t it?
His media presence in the last 2 weeks has been almost equal to the coverage about Prezza and Gordon combined
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5264334.stm
Does this poll really show how good Reid is or how rubbish these kind of polls are?
I feel there’s a bit of both at play here. In my mind this underlines why I people have doubted the strength of the Cameron surge relative to Gordon Brown.
So all it takes these days to get ahead is two competent press conferences.
Frighten people and some will rush to cower behind you. That’s all it is. He remains an opportunist thug whose ‘News of the World’ approach to politics is the opposite of everything liberals stand for. Along with Blunkett and Rebekah ‘traitor’ Wade he is at the nadir of liberal thought in this country.
Having said that, the rod has been made for his own back and, as with similar types of politician, he will be destroyed by his own past in good time.
22: Blue2Win, here are the proportional figures for the 9th April, so you can see the changes since the arrests. The story is much the same - minor changes for other politicians, a big leap for Reid.
Reid 31%
Cameron 46%
Benn 38%
Brown 33%
Campbell 28%
Johnson 23%
Blair 27%
Nobody willing to join me on Man City to beat Chelsea?
(Okay it’s only £2 but if a fan can’t have delusions of grandeur who can?!)
OT. Labour sitting MPs have to say if they want to stand again by 15 September (with reselections starting in October).
What will Tony do? It was assumed he won’t stay on as a backbench MP a la Heath (IIRC his agent said so), so he should step down at next election. But will he announce he’s standing down as MP by Sep 15 or will he submit his name for reselection again just to announce his retirement later when he stands down as PM?
Given that Reid is a Blairite, Blair might be more willing to step down early if he thinks Reid is going to get the job. Just a thought.
Red alert and Mike. I’m always predicting Cameron’s downfall so I can’t claim any great forsight. However….
For those who can remember an early Tony Blair and who can see superficial similarities I would suggest they look a little closer. Blair was super articulate and had an engaging personality but those weren’t the reason the the Party accepted his radical change or the reason the country went for him in such a big way.
He seemed like a politician with a vision. Someone who knew which way they were going and what they wanted to do. With Cameron I see only vacuousness that Isn’t common in a leader. Hague had it and Charlie Kennedy but other than those two I can’t think of any obvious ones.
Anthony Wells: no results of the policy-based questions that were asked?
Paul. As a fellow Mancunion (but a Red one) which part were you from?
I always thought that Man U supporters came from outside Manchester!
I’m from just outside, across the border into Derbyshire (the bit before you hit the Pennines).
29. A good question, and one that typically I have no answer to.
When did you return from Venice?
Anthony Thanks. Interesting for Blair, Reid, Brown, Cameron and Campbell if these are the percentages of all responses. But if they are how does Benn rate that figure - beating Brown? Any ideas?
Or have I got the wrong end of the stick?
28 and 34;No doubt you recall that during the 2004/5 season,Man City were the only team Chelsea failed to beat?(Although do you think realistically mid-lower-mid table is as good as it gets for the blue half of Manc this year?)
The best headline today must be Prescott and the empire of the son
26: You are assuming there are a majority of Labour MPs with integrity! If Labour MPs think Reid will save their skin they will fall behind him, no matter how illiberal and thuggish he is, or what he got up to in the past.
[29][35] Blair won’t be the only Labour MP to say he’ll stand again and change his mind later on…
35. Julian, on Friday night. I planned to write you on Monday.
I don’t know how many Lab MPs will announce their retirement next month. It’s usually common for some of them to announce it quite late in a parliamentary term, but this time it’s not so clear how long the term will be (talks of snap elections and co), so it’s a bit more complicate.
I suspect the same thing regarding Blair can concern Prezza (not sure why, but I assumed he won’t stand again next time…). Rumours are that Chris Leslie (fomer MP for Shipley) is interested in Prezza’s seat
The “usual suspects” for retirements are the old MPs (who already served many terms).
Ann Cryer (born in 1939, but elected just in 1997) has already announced she’ll contest Keighley again.
40 - is he trying to ensure Brown gives him a peerage?
Perhaps those supporting John Reid ought to check out this piece in the Guardian from 2002. Is this the sort of man that can be a Labour Prime Minster?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Northern_Ireland/Story/0,2763,659705,00.html
Reid is not without serious blemish…. he was the first senior cabinet member ever to be severely censured by the parliamentary commissioner for standards, Elizabeth Filkin. It was a tangled affair, but in essence he was accused of using parliamentary allowances, taxpayer’s cash, to pay the salaries of staff, again including his son, in his constituency office, knowing that they were really working for Labour’s electoral campaign. In the course of the inquiry, it emerged that Reid had held “discussions” with other witnesses, which in plain unparliamentary language sounded a lot like threats. Conveniently for Reid, Filkin’s censure was overturned by a Labour-dominated House of Commons committee. It was a political fix that undermined her office, and diminished the notion of independent parliamentary scrutiny of MPs’ conduct. Filkin was eventually forced out of the House of Commons.
“They did not find him innocent. The MPs managed to bring in a verdict of ‘not proven’ - like the Scottish court verdict - by raising the burden of proof to beyond reasonable doubt. It was machine politics at its worst. But that is Reid. He is part of the Lanarkshire West Coast Labour mafia. It’s not about changing the world, making life better for the working class. It’s about looking after yourself and your mates and not being accountable to anyone.
I was wondering how long it would be before the Browites started knifing the Reidites
I noticed Nick P being cool on Reid’s ratings further up too. Having said that, Reid really is in a class of his own when it comes to nastiness, so it is probably justified. What amazes me is that the Blairites are so desperate for an “anyone but Brown” candidate they would consider Reid as viable. Desperation…
44: You’re under the impression I’m a Brownite, Mark? (Pause for roger to collapse with laughter) I’m not an anyone-ite, just an unwavering believer in the Labour cause. But as anyone who’s been here for a while will tell you, if you insist on linking me to anyone, it’d be Tony Blair.
I always try not to get too excited by one poll, though, and (a) I’ve nothing against Gordon and expect him to be a good leader and (b) I think the idea that John Reid is primarily defined by being New Labour is a weird misreading of the man. He’s solid, dependable, and tough, but if he has a strong ideological leaning I’ve not noticed it.
O/T: Having praised Tom Hamilton’s “let’s be sensible” blog a few days ago, I suppose I shouldn’t give him another plug so soon, but this
http://fiskingcentral.typepad.com/fisking_central/2006/08/death_and_taxes.html
is so witty that I think it deserves a plug. I agree with it, too, but I try not to debate policy here, so will leave it at that.
45.”He’s solid, dependable, and tough”
and aggressive….one of the few politicians who make Clare Short look like a so lovely and quiet lady.
“is primarily defined by being New Labour is a weird misreading of the man…….but if he has a strong ideological leaning I’ve not noticed it.”
well, he is quite defined for not being Old Labour (just look at his recent attack to anyone who criticize Tony as a dangerous Old Labour loony…an attack that made some eyes rolling because some of the people he was attacking weren’t that type of MPs)
Then you mentioned “ideological leaning”…but isn’t part of New Labour going beyond ideology? .
four posts in three hours…some sort of record?
The Labour leadership has been done to death here recently with almost every thread for a week focused on it. Small wonder people are getting bored and losing interest.
NP MP @ 44 Surely the most significant thing about Byers’s remarks is that a Labour MP who isn’t Gordon Brown dared to say anything at all about taxes.
48. Yes. The thought of logging on to read some of the long winded and repetitive rants of certain posters might also have had an effect.
just wondering…..Jack W at 16 & 18 ……….did you take a good price on a Fulham draw?
Rumours from Westmorland & Lonsdale that the Con PPC might be having doubts…….or is it that the constituency party is having doubts?
While we are on the subject of Labour, can I just say how impressed I am with Stephen Byers’ article in the Sunday Telegraph? Took a lot of courage for him to write as he did and it will surely incur the wrath of Gordon Brown, which makes it all the more enjoyable.
Betfair suspended betting on the test match, have Pakistan forfeited the match?
(Looks like I made up what I will lose having put faith in Man City anyway!)
Hmm, they seem to be going to start play again. Oh, well that’s four quid down the drain this afternoon (not risking much as you can see)!
54 - Big spender, Paul
Hold it, now the umpires are refusing to come out! Fun, fun, fun……
52. The reception of his article hasn’t been so good among Labour MPs so far. Both Simon Sion and Chris Bryant didn’t like the idea at all
52 - I hope you’re not considering defecting Alastair!
Andrea - I think it’s Sion Simon but I could be wrong.
50 - I think you may have a point but hopefully we’ll have a few polls in the next week or so.
58. yup, Max, Sion is the name and Simon the surname. It sometimes confuses me!
Sheridan ally prepares to quit as crisis deepens for fragmented SSP.
http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=1221792006
THE crisis in the Scottish Socialist party is set to deepen this week as another of its MSPs prepares to quit in the wake of Tommy Sheridan’s sensational libel victory.
Sheridan conceded yesterday that he had no future left in the party he helped build, and has revealed plans to set up a new group to be known as Solidarity.
Now, ally Rosemary Byrne, the SSP MSP for the South of Scotland has revealed that she, too, is considering her position. Byrne, who gave evidence for Sheridan in his court case, will meet party members this week to discuss her position, which is widely seen as untenable by other party members.
If both she and Sheridan quit, it would leave the party with just four MSPs, depriving it of the vital funding it receives from the other two parliamentarians. Sheridan admitted yesterday that he no longer “had the choice of staying in the SSP”.
————————————
The soap opera continues………
59 - Has he had a decent haircut yet? Last year he was sporting hair which suggested he was going through some sort of mid life crisis.
Cricket thing will blow up into a huge issue given current political climate imo - interesting especially given Darell Hares history …
Atherton is bandying around the race card on Sky ….
I fail to see how IHT on one pile of inherited wealth passing to the next generation is a “tax on enterprise”
Byers has lost the plot here - must have been reading the `Express` too much - nothing is more to the detriment of either equality of opportunity or enterprise than inherited wealth - witness South America or parts of Asia where the lack of any sort of inheritance tax has led to the emergence of what can only be described as government proscribed caste systems …
63 - true, a real enterprise economy would champion 100% IHT.
65 - indeed. The offspring of the wealthy will laready have had every advantage that money can buy.
Heh, great link Nick - looks like we agree for perhaps the first time ever!
BTW, I was implying that your previous post hints at a preference for Brown over Reid…
Byers’s article is one of the weakest analyses I’ve seen from a cabinet level minister in a very long time. I could just as well be a Telegraph based commentary diatribe…oh, it was!
The whole “double taxation” argument is so intellectually barren it is laughable. Since the same argument applies to all taxes that fall on anything you do with your (already taxed) income e.g. VAT, all duties, CGT, tax on interest; the “double tax” argument is essentially an argument for the abolition of all taxes except income tax. Idiotic. (Unless that’s actually what you want…which is also idiotic!)
There are arguments against IHT, but Byers found none of them. He has, IMO lowered his already rock-bottom reputation with this extremely poor vomiting his opinions.
65/66. I assume you’re both darting off to Liberal Views to add your comments to my thread…
(Joe, if you’re wondering what I’m on about - LV is available by clicking on my name)
Bit disappointed in the IHT article. The ladies were either very poorly advised or rather negligent. Nevertheless I think it’s a bad tax - partly becuase the well advised can generally find ways round it whilst the uninformed get caught but mainly because there is something flawed in a tax on capital that generally accumulates from taxed income. In that sense it’s a form of double taxation. The Treasury seems to think abolishing it would be too expensive but I wonder whether the political cost of keeping it is becoming too great.
Fun and games at the Oval! Sounds like some clumsy umpiring has sparked an overreaction. Quite a mess to sort out now. Thankfully England seem to be in the clear but nevertheless this one’s sure to run and run.
If you think Stephen Byers article was barking mad try the ‘leader’ which endorses it and thinks Cameron is mad for leaving the tax cutting agenda to the Lib Dems and Labour!! Inheritance tax for 6% of the population or 2p on income tax for everyone is the choice.
65 - The offspring of the wealthy will laready have had every advantage that money can buy.
Depends, really. You are making assumptions about the age of children when their parents die (witness the recent farrago around taxation of trusts).
The paradox is that for many people, part of the drive behind their enterprise is the desire to better their children’s lot.
All that said, I would not repeal IHT though I’m not convinced it should catch all the estates it currently does.
My mother is currently in Verona spending my inheritance - thats her choice - why do some people somehow think they are entitled to all this unearned cash - strange comments for a Labour minister to be making …
I’ve just been through the inheritance tax excercise and I discovered that any amount paid to a charity is completely tax free. So for those who don’t want to aid inequality but don’t want the Chancellor to take your money give it to a charity of your choice. Or give £280,000 to those close to you and the rest to charity
72 - suppose that instead, she chose to give you the cash for a holiday in Verona. Why should the tax implications of that choice depend on whether (God forbid) she passes away in the next seven years?
Not sure I have a great answer to that, really, but then I would certainly want to keep taxing wealth which has been unearned for generations on end, so it’s a tough one.
72 - I would sooner see my spendthrift children get my money than the spendthrift government, which gets too much already. Why do you think the government is entitled to it?
The average age of children having to deal with parents’ IHT is early 50’s. The faux outrage of the Telegraph and co about how children need IHT-free inheritances to either live in the homes or use for a home deposit is laugable - the image of all these people looking for a deposit in their 50’s…honestly!
The way to deal with IHT is to replace it with a personal lifetime gift allowance of, say, ~£250k; effectively transferring the tax from the giver to the reciver. This encorages the breakup of big estates (because by breaking a £1m estate into 4 inheritances no tax is paid) and rationalises the logic that it is more morally justifiable to tax money that you are just given for arbitrary reasons than it is to tax money that you have slaved 40 hours a week to earn. The amount of £250k by the way comes from rough equivalence with your lifetime income-tax allowance, which is roughly 50 years x £5k = £250k.
73. Too right. Blimey Roger, we appear to be in agreement over something.
Also, in wondering which charity to donate to, people can use the wonderful Guidestar UK (www.guidestar.org.uk).
Yes, that’s Guidestar UK. One Website, Every Charity.
Go to Guidestar UK - today!
That’s G…U…I…
77 - Julian, Julian… you disappoint me.
76. I have nothing to back this up apart from anecdotes but a lot of 20-somethings I know have inherited money from grandparents and used it for deposits on their flats.
Slightly off-topic (as it relates to pre-death gifts too!) but I only know one 20-something who has bought a property in London without strong financial aid from family.
78. Haha, in fairness this is pretty much a first for myself (and Roger).
76: Well, it’s always possible to shift down another generation to cry need of poverty. “My children need it” becomes “My grandchildren need it” becomes “My great-grandchildren need it”, etc.
76 - what would you class as a gift? Would the money your parents spend on you when growing up count? Or just certain elements of it: school fees? Car on your 18th birthday?
(I got neither of the above, I hasten to add, nor any help buying my flat.)
I suspect that most people who sing the praises of inheritance tax don’t expect to get much of one themselves. Makes it a bit easier, doesn’t it?
book value: (using names not numbers because numbers keep changing tonight!) It would use the same financial rules as currently. You did know that gifts are taxable didnt you?
AHM: I suspect that most people who sing the woes of inheritance tax expect to get one themselves. Makes it a bit easier, doesn’t it?
:p
Funily enough I had the opposite problem. I wanted to find a way to avoid my daughter having enough money to retire at the age of twenty two!
84 - OK. Probably more rational than the current situation, I agree.
85 - I got mine many years ago, Mark - and I’ve still got most of it too you’ll be pleased to hear.
86 - a little bit more than £280,000 then, otherwise you’ll have to share your tips for frugal living with me
Interesting figures on public perceptions of Inheritance tax dated March of this year:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4826206.stm
I’ve told my parents to leave me nothing, they’ve never had money to spare and I couldn’t live with myself thinking that they’d denied themselves to give me money that I don’t need as much as they do.
On the subject of IHT I remain to be convinced either way.
One tangential factor is of great importance to me, and one that Blair (surprise, surprise!) is on the other side of, this being extension of copyright law.
This is supposedly to help less well known artists and their ofdfspring but, in actual fact, this is complete rubbish, and for two reasons. Firstly, most of these recording artists were on a fixed fee and not percentage royalties. You had to be well known to command the latter. Secondly, those who were not the big stars have their work on CD rarely and,. even then, sales are only as much to buy them the odd cup of tea!
Why it is a danger is that we face losing much of our recorded heritage, a lot of the US recordings that otherwise would be unavailable are in actual fact only so through European public domain companies. What the record company lobby wants is simple, to have their cash cows remain with them (Presley, Beatles etc). They will neglect 99.9% of their catalogue and we will be unable to access it as we do now.
I help a couple of these labels and know that they do it for the love and definitely not for mssive profits! Artists are, almost without exception, glad to have their material re-released and knowing that they will not gain monetarily from it. They know that they would otherwise remain unreleased.
If any MP is still reading and if you want me to put you in touch with these small labels and artists they have released let me know on ourtown (at) btinternet (dot) com.
A principle of neglect, in which recordings otherwise untouched for a period of time became public domain, may be a fruitful avenue to please the powerful music congomerate lobby whilst still safeguarding our recorded heritage.
We now return you to your normal programming!
If someone in their twenties or early thirties now has a parent in the 50/60’s age group. That parent could now live into their nineties. Age of inheritance therefore pushed into late 50’s 60’s. In my own case my mother developed senile dementia, needed constant care, so house sold to pay for it etc. As the state will be unable to fund, what will be an icreasingly older population, many people will find them selves in a similar situation. Housing as an asset will be needed to fund, elderly people in their infirmity. The obvious thing to do if you wish your children to inherit, is a visit to Switzerland at the appropriate time and seek out a friendly Doctor.
Well according to the article only 6% are affected by inheritance tax. Well I have to say I don’t understand the figures? I hardly know anyone who wouldn’t qualify and that includes people of reasonably limited means. Then again I also heard that “baby boomers” are likely to be earning 100 times as much as their parents earned so perhaps the 6% just refers to to-days elderly
Roger, the 6% occurs because the housing boom only happened in the last 8 years or so. There are now large numbers of people who are over the IHT limit, but most of them have many more years to live - we dont know what the IHT limit will be when these people die. Only 6% of people dying now are affected by IHT, but when the people you know die, in however many years, it will be different.
93. The other day Roger claimed he knew no-one who admitted voting Labour at the GE, now he knows no-one unaffected by IHT…I wonder if it has ever occurred to him that the ‘people he knows’ are entirely unrepresentative of the public as a whole?
Sorry to go off thread, but I was at the Oval today. Absolutely farcical… crowd were told nothing about what was happening. My understanding, and the impression we got as a crowd, was that Pakistan had effectively forfeited by not coming out in time - hence Hair’s breaking of the bails.
I notice that Betfair has it listed as suspended pending an official announcement. I fear that this may run and run, although I really hope that in some way Pakistan aren’t supported in their protest as it could lead to everyone doing it if they dont like the umpires decision.
96. Tell me about it. I have money on Pakistan to win. Don’t they know that!!! I agree with your last statement though. Umpires decision is final etc…. But expect Hair to be the fall guy in the days to come. Poor bloke.
96. What is going on? Read BBC newspage earlier and still confused.
Was it ball tampering? the team being late to come out? or the umpires refusing to carry on?
Pakistan refused to come out and start play on time as a protest at being accused of ball tampering. Under the laws of the game the umpires said that this meant they conceded the match. When Pakistan finally decided to continue the game (about half an hour later), the umpires said it was too late as the match was over.
BBC web site now confirming that the game is cancelled. Great!
British soldier killed and three injured in Helmand province, Afghanistan. But Sky leading with the cricket story! I think that it is sad to see that this story does not warrent being the headline anymore. Does the media have any journalists out there these days?
Re Inheritance Tax and the “spendthrift governement”.
My solution would be to hypothecate receipts and use them to fund start-ups (investment decisions to be put in the hands of professionals).
100. Probably says more about the target audience for Sky News than anything else. Agree it is sad though that a dead soldier is relegated below the cricket.
100. A consequence of the rarity value of the news as much as public interest, I’m afraid. Soldiers are dying weekly in Afghanistan and Iraq and it’s something we’re getting used to.
202&203. Agree with you both, I think the situation there is deteriorating and it seems to be slipping below the radar of the media. I can’t remember the last time I saw a journalist reporting on the situation from Afghanistan.
What worries me is that according to the Defense committee the operation is being run on a “shoe string”.
I wonder if we have enough soldiers on the ground, properly equipped to do the job we are asking of them!
101 - My idea is much simpler; Let’s tell the government to get its fingers out and leave people to use their money as they see fit - including the right to pass it on to their heirs.
105. uhm, Alastair, the government needs money to do various things and it has to take them from somewhere. Unless you want the government to do almost nothing (without money they can’t do much), but in that case you can buy a little desert island and become the local independent Lord there
204: It was like in Northern Ireland for a while. “A soldier was killed in Belfast…” would be tagged on to the end of the news as an after-thought.
105 - Indeed, Andrea - and they get quite enough money without taxing us for having the audacity to die.
105 - but that stifles enterprise, Alastair. Just think what could be done with that money in the form of seed-corn for new businesses.
99. Pakistan forfeit the match. Quite right too.
105 - indeed, mine is much simpler - lets make everyone’s children profit by their own efforts. I thought that was what you Conservatives believed; that people should prosper by their own hard work and not be given hand outs that they’ve not earned?
107. When we are comparing the news coverage of soldiers dying in Afghanistan/Iraq to that of Northern Ireland, we are in deep trouble.
109 - Does it? In my opinion, excessive government, with all of its concomitant shackles, is the biggest stifling influence on enterprise in this country, and I will not be easily convinced that this can be changed - even through the sort of scheme you propose.
People being left to themselves with the greatest freedom (financial and otherwise) possible seems a much more certain route to this objective.
109. Would this ’seed corn’ come in the form of interest free loans? if so, then if it was distributed to start up businesses, then by definition that would be an unearned handout, wouldn’t it? If it would be a commercial loan, what would be the point of the scheme?
111 - Conservatives believe in property, ownership and wealth and the acquisition and maintenance of these things - and indeed in less obtrusive government. I fail to understand how these goals are served by what you propose, and why you think we should be foolish enough to go along with them.
113.”Conservatives believe in property, ownership and wealth and the acquisition and maintenance of these things ”
and what do they propose in the case a proportion of the society can’t achieve them? Leaving them to themself?
116 - Andrea, we believe in helping all people in trying to achieve these things for themselves, but we do not accept that in order to do this that it is necessary to penalise those who have already achieved success and their families, or indeed to reward indolence and apathy through the welfare state as we used to do before Mrs Thatcher came to power.
Re the cricket -
With all the TV cameras then the 15 minutes between the ball last being checked and the ball change can easily be reviewed for illegal tampering. If, as I suspect, there wasn’t any then the umpire is on for a tough time. I would imagine that the ECB will sue him/them for lost takings for a start.
Looks like I won a few quid by backing England before betfair suspended anyway!
117. Alastair, the reality of things is that not everybody can achieve them and you don’t seem to offer anything to help those who aren’t able to achieve it. But I suppose it’s a matter of principles you believe in. I don’t find it a “reword indolence and apathy”, but it’s just asking to people with lots of resources to give a little part of them to improve the living conditions to the less fortunate ones.
I think the whole Inheritance Tax system does badly at trying to satisfy one fundamental aspect of human, namely that of dynasticism. Coming from a Chinese family, it is a particularly prominent feature that a “family home”, for instance, nominally in one family members’ name but essentially for the use of the whole extended family, is something that generations wish to pass on to each other. In my opinion this should not be hindered, and although this is stronger in the case of eastern families I would be surprised if this was not a driver for most people in the West also. I therefore care less about thresholds for Inheritance Tax than for the material within it. There should be a complete tax break for instance, the the nominated primary family residence, regardless of value, because it is a parent’s right to want to pass something like this on (and of course I do believe this should apply to large country homes owned by long-lineaged families of noble or not-so-noble descent). After this, the “liquid” element of the legacy can be taxed, perhaps even more than now if the Left feel vindictive enough - and let’s be honest, that is the primary motivation for this entire movement. But it seems important to me that that first home should be exempted. A more complicated alternative, and one which I would favour, would be to have exemptions per child, as most (eastern) families I know aim to bequeath one home or abode per child. However this I suppose may not be mainstream enough in UK society. Definitely one house though at least!
101 Tabman My solution would be to hypothecate receipts and use them to fund start-ups (investment decisions to be put in the hands of professionals).
You can’t, can you - no not really- not mean accountants?
119 - Andrea, people with lots of resources already pay a greater share of tax. At some point, people have to take responsibility for themselves and the direction of their lives and not rely on the state to move them along. I agree that there needs to be a minimal safety need as there are always going to be people who fall through the cracks, some through no fault of their own, but that should not be the major focus of public policy in this area.
Previous Conservative governments have done many innovative things to help move people on the bottom rungs of the ladder up - the right to buy being the most obvious example.
121 - I missed a trick on that one, Clive!
How clever of him…
122. well, Alastair, you can throw the inheritance tax away, but I strongly suspect you’ve to create a new tax to get some money needed. Unless if you want to offer less services by the state, and that’s where we disagree, I suppose.
124 - My first preference would be to cut state spending to offset the loss of income generated by IHT. The ECB forecasts that the UK Government wastes roughly £80 billion a year anyway; finding £3.6 in waste to offset the abolition of IHT shouldn’t be too difficult and we will have rolled back the frontiers of the state in doing so. Double stroke, I would say!
125. Alastair, you won’t say it when all your savings will be swept away by a wrong financial investment in the building of a new Ancient Rome style holiday resort, all your children will try to please your Tatcherite sympathies trying to make a state coup in Guinea Bissau and your pension won’t be paid anymore becuase of a Dawn Primarolo’s mistake!
Anatole, if you exempt particular classes of wealth from tax then there will be a shift in assets towards that class. In a country suffering from acute house-price inflation you suggestion would be petrol on the fire as demand would increase dramatically.
Not only that, but anyone smart would use an easy way to exempt all of their wealth from IHT simply by investing it in improving their “primary” home in ways that added to the home value. That way the home could be sold after being passed on and all the invested wealth could be recouped IHT-free.
Your suggestion would amount to the abolition of IHT for all but the stupid. (Though, some suggest that is already the situation.)
126 - Are you trying to give an old man a heart attack, Andrea??
:shock:
My villa could never turn out to be a poor investment!
128. Nah, Alastair, I would never do such a thing to my second favourite Beaconsfield boy!
I suppose this new Cameron’s proposal can cause some angers among some members:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2321718,00.html
127. Yes but obviously I am not coming from the perspective of trying to maintain tax revenues from IHT. All I am saying is that it is a parent’s right, and indeed a part of the natural order of things, that they wish to leave their children with a home.
BTW, the way you put, what on earth is *wrong* with trying to invest as much as you can into your home in order to increase its value - after all, if it is actually acting as a family home then that is increasing everyone’s utility. An obvious answer would be some sort of proviso not unlike the current 7 year gift rule, namely that IHT would be payable on any transfer of the property outside of the family, as capital gains. Not only that, but investing into *one* primary home would mean that people were less likely to buy second homes and so on, leading to less, not more demand on houses and lowering pressure on house prices.
129 - Second?!?
Well, yes, Alastair.
“People with lots of resources already pay a greater share of tax.”
So they jolly well should. They have more at stake in our society. If we were to be conquered by a foreign foe, they lose far more than the rest of us possibly everything. So they ought to invest a higher proportion of their wealth in the armed forces.
They have more at risk from criminals, so they ought to pay more towards law enforcement and the administration of justice.
They have more at risk from the general destabilisation of society, so they ought to pay more to give everybody a good education, leading to employment with decent salaries.
And so it goes on.
I have no objection whatsoever to paying taxes in proportion to my income and wealth.
But then, I am not a Tory. Chameron has an uphill battle with you lot, hasn´t he?
133- Jonny. Has it escaped your notice those who earn more do pay more tax. I have no objection to someone who earns ten times what I do paying the same share as it would be ten times as much!
Flat tax is the way forward. You just ensure there is a good level of personal allowence which proportionatly whould help lower earners more.
Cam the Man has won over the party and is winning over the Country.
By the way, OMCS/CDS is going really well now with your man up to 11% from 9% and our man slipping a little. Work well done.
Oh, Darren! You forget to mention those who simply inherit great wealth….. And when you talk about “earning”, what you really mean is “receiving”, isn´t it?
114 - many investors don’t charge directly for their investment in the form of interest, but look to take a stake in the comapny - that’s how they recoup their investment.
117 - so, you don’t want to reward indolence and apathy via the state, but you’re happy to reward indolence and apathy via the estate?
Blue 2 win - no, not accountants. Investment Bankers.
136. Surely you mean neither accountants nor investment bankers, but rather venture capitalists?
136 - Estate funds don’t come out of my pocket; state funds do.