Is voting certainty at the heart of the battle for London?
April 27th, 2008
New pollster MRUK has Ken just 1% ahead
With just five days to go before the London elections the new pollster, MRUK, has produced for the Sunday Times what we assume is its final survey and it shows the following first preference split with changes on last week - JOHNSON 43%(-1): LIVINGSTONE 44%(-1): PADDICK 9%(nc). After second preferences MRUK make it 51% to 49% for Ken.
So the Ken first preference figure is dramatically up on the 36.9% that he got in 2004 against much weaker Tory opposition when Labour was leading in most national polls. Ken will continue to perform better than his party but how how much better?
I do not think MRUK asked whether respondents were registered to vote. When MORI did this only 92% of their sample said yes. When that was factored in the firm’s Ken lead amongst those certain to vote was reduced from 6% to 3%. Would the same have applied with MRUK?
The firm, which is applying for membership of the British Polling Council, does operate past vote weighting so, unlike MORI, seeks to ensure a politically, rather than just a demographically, balanced sample. They do not prompt by party or the names of the leading candidates which is probably why the firm is showing the smallest share for Paddick.
But the real decider might be how they have handled the turnout question. The responses of those who said they were 80% certain and more were included in the final numbers and last week that amounted to 75% of the sample. In the 2004 election the turnout was 36.95%.
Unlike ICM both MORI and MRUK ask the certainty question after they have dealt with voting intention - something which might affect the figures. I have asked MORI about this and will be dealing with it in more detail in a later post.
So we all wait for the internet pollster YouGov. What will its final numbers show? Will Boris still have a reasonable margin? Who is your money on in the polling battle of London?
The mayoral betting has moved to Ken in the past 36 hours and Boris’s price is now at 0.73/1.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
I shall not try an be original. Or geniel host is correct Turnout is going to be nowhere near what some plsters are suggesting inthere certainity to vote figures and that sadly helps boris.
Nice picture, Mike.
I had half expected the Sunday papers to have an expose on Boris this week and the New of the World story is “TOP TORY’S H00KERS BONDAGE AND DRUG ORGIES - Cameron pal cheats on wife with vice girls”.
Turns out not to be Boris, but a Conservative Lord called Lord Laidlaw, who apparently is a fundraiser.
Man, perhaps my bet on Dick Whittington’s dead cat over Boris isn’t so snarky after all?
Because if there are lazy (or if you prefer, infrequent) Ken voters, aren’t there also plenty of lazy Boris voters, in particular young people who like him more for his comic appeal than his executive acumen?
Would agree however that differential turnout could indeed be a huge factor. Also that total turnout of 60% or thereabouts seems very unlikely, albeit not impossible.
Believe another key factor may be the balance between Livingstone’s likely erosion in outer London, and a potential increase for him in innner London. Frankly the evidence for the former appears stronger than for the latter.
Few other possible factors to consider:
1. London election as referendum on Gordon Brown (possible motivation for many voters methinks) which would NOT be good news for Ken. But the fact that he’s not exactly a party loyalist may help him here.
2. London election as referendum on David Cameron (doubtful)
3. Livingstone fatigue; even Fiorello LaGuardia couldn’t find anyone who wanted to see him run again after being in office for a decade.
4. Fear of the devil you don’t know versus the devil you do know; even Tory diehards must admit (I think) that you are essentially buying a pig in a poke if Boris is elected; he could be very good OR a total disaster, anyway its a bit of a risk.
Still am thinking Boris & the Ozman will pull it off. But can see why the boys & girls at ConservativeHome are feeling so fragile . . .
4 - couldn’t that be a headline from any decade post-Profumo?
4. I mean, the phrase “Tory whip” conjures up more than just one image in most people’s mind’s eye . . .
What’s with the duck?
OT - GUAM CAUCUSES
Democratic caucuses on US territory of Guam are scheduled for Saturday, May 3. However, village of Inarajan has a local festival scheduled for that day, so they held their caucus yesterday (Saturday).
Haven’t been able to find any results yet.
8 - FALSE ALARM - CORRECTION
May 3 is Sunday, not Saturday. And the Inarajan caucus is scheduled for Saturday, May 2 - not yesterday! Mea culpa!
Did I read this right? ‘I’d give Boris a job, says Ken’!
“After weeks of dismissing Boris Johnson as a lightweight celebrity, Livingstone conceded he would try to employ his opponent if he were re-elected and even hinted that he could put Johnson in pole position for the 2012 elections.
In a wide-ranging interview with The Observer, the embattled mayor also called on the government to dump plans to detain terror suspects without trial for up to 42 days, warning that it ‘would not save a single Londoner’s life’ and would jeopardise Muslim co-operation with the security services.
Asked what he regretted after eight years running the capital, Livingstone said he wished he had brought his defeated rivals into the fold after the 2004 elections: ‘Certainly if I get elected this time, I will phone people up and say “I want you to come in and do this (job) for the benefit of London”. If Boris doesn’t win, I am not certain Cameron is ever going to put him in one of the great offices of state, so I suspect he will be back for another go. He would be a better mayor [for having worked in the administration].
‘I think Boris is a person of huge potential, but he’s never been involved in detailed administration of anything. I would genuinely want Boris to come in, take a job and get some experience.’”
Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/apr/27/livingstone.boris
If this is remotely true, I’m stunned, frankly. Not least because I sent off my postal vote yesterday, having voted for Ken to stop Boris… and now he says he’d employ him anyway! Makes me wonder why I bothered!
110. makes him look Bi Partisan and above the fray. Good stuff.
So what are the odds of Boris winning?
10: Interesting move… Sort-of reminds me of Hillary’s “Obama for VP” gambit:
1) Makes the offerer look inclusive and non-partisan (and the way Ken’s party’s doing, he _needs_ to look non-partisan…)
2) Emphasises his “other guy too inexperienced” narrative
3) If he loses, opens up the frame that the other guy should give him a job…
13 exactly
320 on the previous thread. I couldn’t be absolutely sure, but you seemed to suggest you believe the reason we are doomed is because of democracy? By what standard are the emerging powers of East and South Asia “Mongoloid”, even if the old 19th century classifications of race still had scientific validity?
SSI,
“As for the United States tolerating domination or dictation from London in ANY form from the 1770s up to the 21st century, forget it. We ran you guys off the first decent opportunity we got. Then spent a few generations trying to wrest Canada from your grasp. Nearly came close; likely would have succeeded except for the stalwart oppostion of French Quebeckers, who by the way also HATED the whole notion of a “federal Empire”.”
Actually, many the British colonists, especially the founding fathers considered themselves proud Englishmen. George Washington himself used to toast to the motherland virtually every night. Those arguing for independence were the crazy radicals, who only got listened to because of the sheer bloody-minded stubborness of George III, who ignored the many voices in the Westminster parliament arguing to give the colonists the rights they deserved. The belief that the American realms would become a cohesive force dominating any federal empire is also spurious: they were hugely divided among themselves. More likely the northern colonies would have sided with London against the slave-owning south.
Incidentally, George III was also idiotic enough to oppose the Catholic emancipation, forever turning Irish Catholics against the Union, which they had previously favoured.
It’s an excellent statement from Ken. Nothing is so becoming him as the manner of his exit. He is fighting a dignified and phlegmatic race. The cynic in me says it is because he thinks he will lose so he wants to lose well but I am still impressed. Gordon Brown will go kicking and screaming but Ken is doing so with the utmost dignity and I have new respect for him.
I might even buy his book to help him pay for his kids after he writes it!
[16] Indeed, the American War of Independence has a good claim on being the First American Civil War. Canada was a Good Thing for the infant United States, as it gave the defeated Loyalists (or Tories as they called themselves) somewhere to go, rather than disruptively festering inside the U.S.A.
It provides one of the more amusing scenarios of “counterfactual history” - what if there had been steamships (and a telegraph cable under the Atlantic) in the 1770s? That technology would have made American representation at Westminster feasible. My guess is that the growing influence of American seats, and the problem of slavery, might have led to a British War of Independence about… oh, say 1861?
The weather pollsters are forecasting light showers on Thursday, though a 44% chance of rain makes it the dryest day of the week.
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/weather/
8. You’re in a right muddle lol! Sunday is May 4th, not 3rd. May 3rd is the Saturday. 30 days in April …
10 He is actually just copying Brown’s GOAT strategy from last year because he knows it makes Lib Dems go weak at the knees. Like Brown it has nothing to do with getting all the talent, it is just sneaky politics and any sensible voter will think what a load of old rubbish and surmise that corrupt old Ken is so desperate not to lose his go at the gravy train he will invite say anything whether remotely true or not.
One last ruined campaigning weekend! Can’t wait for this to be over for a rest before by-election mania sets in… Off for a fun filled delivery session. The MP3 makesthis all the more bearable - and Whitesnake have released their first new CD in 11 years so not a totaal waste of a morning!
“Indeed, the American War of Independence has a good claim on being the First American Civil War.”
Indeed it was a civil war. And one that could never have been won without a great deal of help from France and Spain. The British government made the mistake of trying to fight all its enemies at once, rather than concentrating on regaining the colonies.
WRT Canada, I don’t think that Americans came at all close to capturing it in the 1812 War.
WRT last night’s EU discussion, if Cameron were to take office before the Treaty had been ratified, I don’t see how he could avoid giving a referendum. The pressure for it among his MPs would be overwhelming.
MRUK show 87% of votes going to either Ken or Boris. This seems extraordinarily high.
After the election, the various pollsters will be seeking to justify their methods, and given the wide divergence of answers, some will have a lot of explaining to do. The polled results on turn out and joint Ken/Boris share will be worth as much scrutiny as the headline split between them in considering the value of their methods.
Mike’s picture Alex [4] is not nice. Londoners should vote 1,2,3 not an X.
However they vote, I would be very surprised if more than 40% of those on the register vote.
Will Hutton should stick to economics
“http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/apr/27/georgeosborne.conservatives
Just a thought on the national scene and the Liberal Democrats.
If they are 20% or about nationally and only 12% in Scotland, then this suggest their present national vote in England and Wales must be almost the same as at the last General Election, as they were then at 23% in Scotland. Would need to work out exactly with the help if total voting figures in both places etc.
But it does tend to belie those on this site who tend to write them off. See what happens to them on Thursday.
Also talking to some Crewe folk yesterday, they seemed to accept it is safe Labour and were a bit suprised when I suggested there could be landslide for somebody, probably the Cons.
3. That will be the Lord Laidlaw who funds the Scottish Tories and lives in Monte Carlo
28 Got to say I am surprised at how well we are doing - I suppose it could be a combination of Vince and how badly Labour are doing.
Regarding silent pollees, on balance, my guess is that it’s marginally more socially acceptable to say out loud that you prefer Ken and the status quo, than Boris and all that that might say about you.
With people I know well, I can come out and say I’ll be voting Boris, give the reasons and they’ll understand. But in less comfortable milieus, with people I don’t know that well, I prefer to be silent than have the discussion it leads to, with all its attendant negatives.
I’m hoping and guessing (and banking) that there’s a bit of this in the polls.
Difficult to judge the mood at the moment. I’ve not seen a single poster or campaigner in my bit of central south London (which is a Labour stronghold) but I guess that people are less vocal about their politics nowadays, plus there’s concensus, plus apathy. All very difficult to call.
26 - ?
London votes with Xs.
Good Morning all.
London Mayoral Election
I really appreciated the mruk feedback last night. I’ve topped up my already scarily large Boris position at these better prices.
Now, many here have described this race as one that transcends party politics and is more like an “X Factor” situation about personalities as well as talent (policy, fitness for role).
In Reality TV shows the winners have often been those who capture the public’s interest the most. To this end, take a look at the google search trend chart on the link below;
http://tinyurl.com/5wqqk3
Close, but a clear interest gap in Boris’ favour.
What other non-traditional ‘indicators’ may be of use in this race?
26 Icraus - allthe voting papers are “X” The mayoral vote has two columns, one “X” in each (if you wish to excercise a second preference). If you marked 1 and 2 last time the vote was rejected for uncertainty.
…unless the 1 and 2 were in different columns
23: The Commons has a corridor with Hansards going back into the mists of time, and in a spare moment I looked up the 1777 debates during the American War of Independence. They were very reminiscent of Iraq debates - Government saying it was going well, some saying it would be won (by the British) soon, some saying it weould be long and difficult, and quite a few questioning whether we ought to be fighting and expressing sympathy for the rebels.
24: Perhaps a journalist should ask him. “If the Irish vote no but will later revote, so the issue is not yet decided if you come to power, do you guarantee a referendum?” I predict he’ll wriggle.
Yes sorry, have just read Alan Watkins re Xs in different columns - What a ridiculous system. Turnout 40% with 10% spoilt (ie wrongly filled in) papers then.
re 26. Icarus - In the London election the ballot form is not as simple as that. Instead of putting your choice in order 1 2 there are two columns. In each you place an X
37) so Icarus is that concern bad for Ken (more voters without english as a first language) or Boris (more aged, possibly slightly senile voters). ???
33
Political — it’s always a pleasure to read your inputs.
Good luck to you — and may Boris win…
Go BoJo, Go!
Yesterday I was with a bunch of people who not only were all going to vote for Ken but who didn’t think Boris had a hope! Whether or not they are wrong I did find it refreshing to see another side of the coin from the posters on this site. To all those who are betting their farms on Boris because of the group think on here remember Ealing Southall and Tony Lit!
30 I agree: quietly the liberal democrats have reversed the autumn decline and are now at their highest point for a year with two polling companies (Mori and yougov) and just one point of their highest with ICM. Also the marginals poll (see thread yesterday) also seemed to have good news for liberal democrats. Of course all this is overshadowed by unimpressive polling figures from London at the moment, and the fact that the tories are also at the top end of their scale, and set to gain about three hundred seats next Thursday.
ISLAMIC KEN
Ho! I am SO surprised! : http://www.eastlondonadvertiser.co.uk/content/towerhamlets/advertiser/news/story.aspx?brand=ELAOnline&category=news&tBrand=northlondon24&tCategory=newsela&itemid=WeED25%20Apr%202008%2016%3A36%3A04%3A363
41
Was that during your visit to your local Labour party offices?
36 Perhaps, but I think it’s a mistake to assume that eurosceptics aren’t sincere in their beliefs.
45 there is hardly a more deeply held view in British politics.
33. But a lot of Boris’ “lead” seems to come from the Milton Keynes and Reading areas, if I read those graphs correctly.
And why would ‘Poplar’ be more ‘popular’ than London?
What other single view has managed to create whole political party which can get 10% + of the vote in at least one kind of election?
48 - The Environment?
47: I’m speculating here, but my guess is that a lot of the London area internet traffic goes through datacenters in Poplar and that’s what Google’s picking up. Wouldn’t be surprised if the Milton Keynes and Reading ones are actually from various places around Greater London as well.
49
Really? I haven’t seen the Greens challenging any of the 3 main parties in UK wide elections in the way UKIP did in the Euros last time.
Anyone who doubts the depth of antipathy towards the EU in Britain is making a serious error. It may not make or break parties at elections but it has the ability to change the whole atmosphere as regards the way parties are viewed. I firmly believe that whilst peoplpe may not always cite it as important in surveys, the way in which Labour renaged on their promises over the EU referendum has seriously damaged their credibility just as much as any other single factor.
BTW Sean I notice you were expecting Exeter to swtich to Cons the largest party. I am no longer as close to what is going on there but it would be very interesting if that comes to pass.
Exeter is pretty unusual in that the Labour minority is sustained by support from the Tories and sometimes the Liberals, but there is no formal coalition.
Would it simply switch to being the other way round…
Can’t credit this poll. The top two to get 87% of first preferences. Wildly wrong for starters, so not worth looking at the details.
Phillippe is already banging his Islamic issue drum, so the attraction of mowing the lawn is greater than loitering on this forum.
44. I have never been anywhere near a Labour Party office in my life and I would doubt any of them would have been either! Politics is a minority sport!
43. Phillipe. What have you got against Islam? I notice it’s something of a theme in your posts.
51 My experience is this is true. For example we recently did a local survey for a by-election. The questions were all bread and butter stuff and then there was an invitation to comment on any other issue.
Only 25% of people bothered to say anything - and all bar one of those mentioned the EU - though most of them were people intending to vote Tory there were a few LibDems and Labourites in there too.
Needless to say we lost the by-election.
Talking of America the London Mayor contest is very American. We have two strong personalities who plan to be their own men and not just part of their party’s machinery. The same situation exists in Scotland where Salmond is much more popular than his party.
I am looking forward to these elections as I think they will tell us a lot about future elections. Not just London but Wales as well.
51 - Short memory
41 Hardly a scentific sample though is it Roger. I spoke to several people yesterday,and none would vote for Ken if their life depended on it. So far we are even. but what does it prove, precisely nothing.
51. You’d have to go back to 1989, when the Greens polled well above 10% at the Euro-elections, but that was mainly because the Lib Dems (as they’d just become), were a self-absorbed joke at the time and the centre-ground was looking for an alternative - so it was as least as much a negative vote i.e. none of the above, rather than a positive one for the environment.
53. Yes, 87% is way too high for Ken+Boris. 96% is even more unbelieveable for Ken+Boris+Brian.
A 60% turnout would be high, but not impossibly so. This has been a high profile campaign, with the result known to be in the balance. I could easily see Ken scoring his highest vote of the three contests he’s stood in and still losing.
How much discretion do councils have over when they send Postal Votes out? It just seems strange to me that the Loony says that Croydon have already processed a large number of their total expected postal vote.
Richmond only delivered their’s to voters on Friday/Saturday.
re 41. Roger - the difference between this election and last year’s by election is that we have opinion polls. There is no comparison.
I am holding my fire on the betting front ahead of the next YouGov survey. If this shows, say, that it’s getting tighter even though Boris is in the lead then I expect that the markets might move against the Tory.
51. The Greens polled about 15% (under first-past-the-post) in the 1989 euro-elections.
I wonder why Lord Levy should want to do this hatchet job and sell it to the Mail? He doesn’t need the money and alienating his last few allies doesn’t seem very smart.
Talking of Lords I notice Laidlaw is one of Boris’s principal backers. After the ‘Evening Standard’s in depth investigation’ into Ken’s financial backers perhaps this week they’ll look at Boris’s? Then again perhaps they won’t!
re 59. to get up to 60% turnout levels you need a mass of activity on the ground to get the votes out. From all reports this has been very patchy.
I’ve been visiting London about twice a week during April and I get no sense of things happening on the ground. Today we are off to see friends in Twickenham and I might get a better feel there.
36. not everyone is as slippery as you nick
59 - One could come up with numerous reasons for UKIP’s performance in 2004. A single issue party which exploited a certain set of circumstances to poll a large vote. Doesn’t necessarily mark their single issue as unique.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3822710.ece
……Well it made me laugh
Actually just visiting the Wikipedia page for 1989 is interesting (if accurate) in the light of ongoing debates on this site.
It says that the 1989 Euro Election “saw Labour overtake the Conservatives for the first time in any election since October 1974″
Milliband says that tax burden is going down. Is this true?
61
… tighter than the last YouGov poll?
Puts some of the large Labour poll leads at times during the eighties into perspective.
Actually reading that he comes across as a pretty decent bloke with some fairly pervy interests - as I LibDem I wouldn’t worry about that too much!
69 - Probably if you don’t include VAT.
69
Turn it round the othr way. Gov’t spending as % of GDP is rising.
So he’s lying.
66
It is unique in that it is the only issue which affects almost every other aspect of our lives and laws. One of the reasons for the increasing antipathy towards the EU is that the Eurosceptics have been successful in promoting the idea in the public perception that so many of the stupid rules and decisions that are blighting our lives ultimately derive from the EU.
This is a situation which can only get worse given the fundamental nature of the EU and there is a well organised campaign to ensure this stays in the public eye and that any EU involvement in decisions is highlighted to the public.
73,74 Hopefully someone will fisk this then.
67. Should have waited 2 more comments before posting that Roger.
67 Roger - if we are going to link to tittle tattle did you see the third MoS story from Levy
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=562324&in_page_id=1770
Having a quiet look at the US Dem race.
By my maths the nine primaries left produce 408 delegates.
Obama’s camp say they have 241 super delegates and are short of the 2025 figure by 290.
Assuming that Obama picks up say only 180 of the 208, he is likely to get more, probably 200, then he only requires say 350, even 340 super delegates, just another 100 out of the 300 remaining.
One can see why the Democratic Party is getting frustrated, really the media and say the Clinton camp are perhaps conning us out of the reality of the siutation, and seeing a contest which perhaps is not really a contest.
75 - So if UKIP poll 5% next year will that be evidence of this “increasing antipathy”? If we’re using electoral performance as a guide?
Morning Campers !!!!
Obama has picked up another super delegate in the shape of Charlene Fernandez of Arizona :
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/26/obama-picks-up-superdelegate/
36. Not wishing to push the parallel too far, but surely it is worth noting that probably the two main reasons the American War of Independence was lost were the failure of the British to win hearts and minds - and indeed, through several actions, to actually push them into the insurgents’ camp, and the desire to win what should have been a political battle by military means. The Americans won few set-piece battles, but they didn’t need to; they just needed to keep fighting and wear the British down to the point at which political backing dropped to a low enough level whereby a single victory would be enough. A classic example of how a well motivated insurgency can take on and beat a superpower.
18. Perhaps a more realistic counterfactual would be to move the conflict to a time when that technology did exist, rather than move the technology to when it undoubtedly didn’t. The Rebellion was prompted by a couple of decades of (sometimes willful) misunderstandings, and was made possible by the defeat of the French in the Seven Years War, which removed the real need for protection from another great power.
Suppose the North administration (or perhaps a different one?) had managed to finesse the taxation issue successfully. It would have meant a lower tax income, but not disasterously so. Without the burden of an American War to finance, the French monarchy may well not have fallen in 1789, so no Napoleonic Wars either - or at least, not at that time.
By contrast, the slavery issue would have raised its head. The anti-slavery movement was already beginning to pick up a head of steam by the time of independence. Any legislative attack on the Slave Trade would have been seen by those in the South (of North America) as an attack on their interests. Would their complaints have had the backing of the Northern colleagues, benefitting from the lower taxation?
It is certainly possible to see a scenario whereby the American War of Independence and their Civil War could have been combined into one, a war that would without question have brought in France and Spain as well - after which the variables become so big as to be practically unmanageable.
69 Its bolloc*s it has to be. Tax has massively increased under Labour, some of it by stealth such as the doubling of Council tax.
82 - I assumed he was referring to the current position ie. as a result of the budget, not the tax changes over the course of ten years.
OT. My daughter told me that she’s just got something like an extra £30 because of “something to do witH tax”. It occured to me how incompetent this current administration has been not to have flagged up to young people like her that they had reduced their tax rather than allowing the 10p story to dominate.
54
Nothing. But as the great Adam Smith woukd say, I am greedy. I mean: my money is on BoJo and I honestly fear that both the market and the polls are underestimating the effect of this hyper-activism. Had my money been on Islamic Ken, I would say: Go Muslims, Go!
That will depend on whether or not the Conservatives are seen as an honestly Eurosceptic alternative. If they are then UKIP will do badly. If they are not then UKIP will do better.
64. Fair enough - I’ve not been to London since the pbc party! I did imply that a 60% turnout was at the top end of the range which I’d consider plausible, rather than it being a prediction.
82 - Plus the iniquitous stamp duty land tax. Three % on 400k and over which buys only a very average house in some parts of the country.
I’d be surprised if turnout gets to 50%.
83 You mean spinninmg a story that has a grain of truth in it, but ignoring the fact that taxes (and spending) have gone through the roof undel Labour. My tax has doubled under Labour in the last month.
86 - better than 5% or better than 2004?
90 - Do you not pay council tax then?
83 Thats correct thought Milliband was impressive at least he had some fight in him.
81 Think that the anti-slavery movement in Great Britain together with that in the northern colonies might have provoked an uprising in the South much earlier in nineteenth century.
As for other effects - the Enlightenment wouldn’t have had such far reaching effects without US Constitution - would there have been a French revolution or even the 1832 Reform act?
Wars with France & Spain over Louisiana & Spanish possessions in the West?
Cherokee & other civilised tribes might well have kept territorial integrity and an amerindian state or states could still exist in North America.
Would the British Empire have expanded into Africa and India with same purpose if it was concentrating on the Americas?
86 - further to that, any Conservative success in meeting the UKIP challenge will also depend on how well the opposition can capitalise on the scandelous way in which the selection of candidates was handled by Conservative Central Office. The fact that so many Pro-EU MEPS were able to retain top spots on the lists could well be a big problem for the Conservatives if highlighted in the campaign.
82. Err, Council Tax isn’t a stealth tax. It’s very visible.
Arguably, the best way to reduce taxation in the long run would be to move from ’stealth’ to ‘visible’ taxes.
But there wouldn’t be much political gain in the short-term from ’stealth tax cuts’.
69. Could be if HMG is borrowing more.
92 (con) - Sorry, just making a silly point about using different taxes depending on the time period looked at.
Presumably it’s only your income tax that has doubled, not National insurance and anything else.
88. Everybody’s much wealthier than they were ten years ago so tax as a proportion of wealth will certainly have gone down and just as importantly we aren’t living in the third world country with falling down hospitals and schools that we were then.
91 - certainly better than 5%. But I would predict that anyway no matter what the Conservatives do.
98 - yes we are. Try using them.
84 Roger agreed most people where I worked said their take home pay had gone up last week when they recieved their monthly wage slips.
And they were not expecting that.
However its the perception that counts.
95. Party X campaigning on Party Y’s internal procedures is a big turn-off for voters.
“Never mind that, what are you going to do?”
Anyway, just checked the ‘Rich List’ of UK’s 1000 richest people. I’m not on it, so I’m going into the office for a few hours.
Still might post from there though!
98 - Having been to Millfield and using your private health care (so you said)you know as much about the health service and education as politics, which is very little.
80. O/T After Pennsylvania, I was expecting a flood of super-delegates declaring for one or the other candidate as part of s momentum strategy. In practice, there have been only 6 new declarations - 4 for Obama and 2 for Clinton.
Well hospitals and schools obviously aren’t falling down. Anyone who’s used them can see that.
That’s a different point to whether the service delivered within them has improved (other than through improvement that comes naturally with technological improvement, something to which Govts can have only a limited influence).
92 I certainly do. When I moved into my house 10 yrs ago Council tax was 1100 a yr, now its £2315 it went up by over 4% in April despite Gordon telling us inflation is only 2%….
95: Voters are clever enough to realise that in many seats a vote for UKIP will allow a Labour or Lib Dem candidate to win.
101
Of course anyone paying 22% income tax would see an increase in net pay as tax was reduced to 20%.
If , however, you were low paid, and used to tax at 10%, it’s now 20%.
But if you are a welloff Labour supporter, it’s just the poor that are hit.
Labour love the poor.
105
so what we are effectively saying is that Labour has done some window dressing but nothing has changed.
Actually I would disagree with that. In my perception as someone using both public health services and with kids in state schools, the service from both has deteriorated substantially. Worse in education than health but still dire in both.
Ironically to some perhaps, as a Eurosceptic I rather wish the government would take some lessons from French health services which are vastly superior.
Weak performance by Cameron on Andrew Marr show.
Doesn’t seem to have a clear narrative just we’ll manage things better than Gordon.
Struggled to give clear answer to question of when tax burden would be reduced.Ducked question as to whether Tories would reinstate 10p band.
The lib Dems on tax and spend are a model of clarity compared to Cameron
ie Keep spending level same ,but change priorities within this.
On tax same overall level but make fairer with higher taxes for the rich and green polluters( the rich again)
Lower taxes for low and mid incomes via abolish council tax introduce local income tax and cut basic rate by 4p
Real movc eto mlocalismby reducing centralk tax and increasing local tax.
If if you disagree and would prefer to keep helping the rich at leat its clear.
Rogerh
New thread - MRUK data: Boris leading among those certain to vote
I’m off for the rest of the day. Paul Maggs will be posting the Mayor prediction competition at about 5pm
Here is some evidence against which to measure the views at the beginning of the thread, that Ken is determined to create a big tent and be conciliatory to his opponents.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kMuHlt5IIs&eurl=http://conservativehome.blogs.com/londonmayor/2008/04/ken-livingsto-1.html
110. His style is effeminate and consensual its worked upto now.
Might need to change in a more difficult economic period.
94. Interesting questions. As I mentioned at [81], had the actual War of Independence been averted, slavery was the next most likely issue to provoke a major rebellion. Given that both France and Spain had territories in North America, and an interest in slavery, I can’t believe that a civil war / revolutionary war on that issue could not have drawn them into the conflict, and that would have put Florida, Cuba, the French Carribean islands and mainland territories on the table as well.
If it didn’t happen until the 1810s, especially if a French Revolution had also been deferred, an 1832-style Reform Act might have happened by then anyway. There was much discussion of this prior to 1789, but events in France caused the political classes in Britain to go cold on the subject of poiltical reform.
There would have been a French Revolution, as the system was rotting from the inside, but without the financial burden of the war in North America, it would probably have been later - possibly during the 1810s, when there were some extremely bad summers / harvests following a volcanic eruption, which would have lead to food riots. Much though would have depended on what else Louis XVI might have decided in the years he didn’t rule.
I doubt that American-Indian states proper would have survived into the 21st century, but western expansion would have been more orderly had it been carried out under a British flag. Much though would depend on whether the South managed to win independence (as in 1783) or not (as in 1865). A competitor state in the South would have forced much faster expansion. Either way, native Americans would probably have been treated more as Africans were in the British colonies in that continent of the mid- to late- nineteenth century, rather than Indians were in India.
African expansion? Yes. Partly strategic, partly out of necessity to shift population, partly to control important resources, partly because of the same dynamics that set off the Scamble for Africa. India? Harder to say. In some ways, the British only really ended up running India because no-one else was (at least in a strategic sense). Had the Chinese option of heavy influence at the highest levels been available, it’s surely at least as likely that that would have been used - as indeed in some ways it was. British control in India was never as absolute as in the African colonies, for example.
104 Barnesian. I expect a number of NC SD’s to endorse Obama prior to the primary as part of the Obama momentum operation in the state.
114 Part of Great Britain’s expansion into Egypt & India was for alternative sources of cotton - agree that Britain would probably have done more of “protectorate” rather than direct rule if outcome of the Anglo-French/Anglo-Spanish conflicts had been a British victory. Slavery and raw materials drove British expansion in Africa - initially trading for slaves and then from mid 19th century in East & central Africa the anti-arab slave trade closely followed by desire for control over mineral wealth.
Not sure that with North America to exploit there would have been same drive to exploit others but perhaps the New England merchants plus Victorian British ones might have been even more hungry for business.
Think that the Civilised tribes may well have had a state/s - not necessarily independent but initially as royal protectorates on Indian model, sufficient to have created a different outcome.
Would there have been a United Kingdom? or would the federal model adopted to keep the colonies also have been a model for Ireland?
107 - in the Euro elections probably none. Since it is not held under a FPTP system. I don’t recall any claims that votes for UKIP allowed Labour or Lib Dem MEPs in at the last Euros.
Actually in my region it was a vote for the Tories which allowed a Lib Dem in as Bill Newton-Dunn changed parties shortly after tyhe elections.
I have to say I agree with parts of Hutton’s analysis in the Observer today, I know people who would go from being a stay at home Labour supporter to voting Conservative if they would just set out an alternative to how we got into this situation economically. I imagine most Conservative supporters will be saying come the time of the election the rabbits will be pulled from hats but you have to say that at the moment the Conservatives are going end up as the largest party in a hung parliament on the basis of Labour being useless then anything they have done. They have the media narrative with them (including the BBC it seems recently) and a coherent vision in 2010 could see Labour losing 150 seats instead of 80.