SNAP GENERAL ELECTION CALLED OFF

NorthernMonkey Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 03:55:53 PM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook


From BBC News:
Gordon Brown is expected to say he will not call a general election this autumn, the BBC has learned. BBC political editor Nick Robinson understands that the prime minister is due to make a statement soon.



Opposition leaders had challenged Mr Brown to end uncertainty over whether he would call an election after mounting speculation in recent weeks. Recent opinion polls have suggested that Labour's lead over the Conservatives has fallen. Speculation had been mounting that the prime minister would call a November election after he announced plans to make a statement to MPs on Iraq on Monday. Conservative leader David Cameron had called upon Mr Brown to end what he described as "endless dithering".

And Liberal Democrat leader Sir Menzies Campbell said the continued uncertainty was damaging the process of government. The two dates that were most widely touted for an election had been 1 and 8 November.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7031749.stm

tags: , (all tags)

Display: Sort:
SNAP GENERAL ELECTION CALLED OFF | 69 comments (69 topical)

Re: SNAP GENERAL ELECTION CALLED OFF (#1)

by swatantra on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 04:05:59 PM GMT

Phew!!!


Re: SNAP GENERAL ELECTION CALLED OFF (#2)

by NorthernMonkey on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 04:10:59 PM GMT

Yep, thank God for that.

Brown will face a rough time for the next couple of weeks (and deservedly so), but he'll get over it and the public won't care in a month's time.

The country wasn't ready for an election yet. Just wait until June 2009 Mr. Brown and don't hype things up until then.


[ Parent ]

Re: SNAP GENERAL ELECTION CALLED OFF (#3)

by Wilberforce on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 04:26:20 PM GMT

This is indeed good news. What a mess. I hope that some adviser's heads roll, especially whoever told him to go to Iraq last week.


[ Parent ]

Re: SNAP GENERAL ELECTION CALLED OFF (#6)

by rwendland on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 04:54:48 PM GMT

Iain Dale says Douglas Alexander is being spun for the blame, and the Telegraph adds Ed Balls as a culprit. The media will have a field day, but I guess the effect will largely blow over by Xmas.

If it's true in general that only 59% of Labour voters want to in wintery months, compared to 71% of Tories, I wonder if the Tories will favour winter when/if they ever get back in?


[ Parent ]

Re: SNAP GENERAL ELECTION CALLED OFF (#12)

by Simon Morley on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 05:49:39 PM GMT

Whoever thought up this stunt are a complete bunch of toshers. It smacks of those who see politics as just another professional sport and go straight from school to the Westminster village. I’m a great believer that it takes all sorts to make a world, so I don’t have a problem with people like this as such, but when they get too influential it just devalues what politics for most is all about, namely running the country in line with values you really believe in, not just being on the winning team.


[ Parent ]

Re: SNAP GENERAL ELECTION CALLED OFF (#4)

by HOWLERMONKEY on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 04:28:29 PM GMT



The first batch was ready to go...


Re: SNAP GENERAL ELECTION CALLED OFF (#5)

by swatantra on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 04:30:55 PM GMT

Great for marking out the ski run on the slopes this winter.


[ Parent ]

Re: SNAP GENERAL ELECTION CALLED OFF (#23)

by SocialistAC on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 11:55:44 PM GMT

They've got the old party logo though. ;)


[ Parent ]

Re: SNAP GENERAL ELECTION CALLED OFF (#25)

by treborc on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 09:20:44 AM GMT

My local labour will not use the new logo.


[ Parent ]

Re: SNAP GENERAL ELECTION CALLED OFF (#48)

by SocialistAC on Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 04:44:09 PM GMT

Fair enough, it looks like a deformed fingerprint.


[ Parent ]

Re: SNAP GENERAL ELECTION CALLED OFF (#34)

by HOWLERMONKEY on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 05:33:57 PM GMT

Ssushs...


[ Parent ]

Re: SNAP GENERAL ELECTION CALLED OFF (#7)

by TonyH on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 05:06:27 PM GMT

What a calamity.

I'm glad there isn't an election as there shouldn't have been one - but there should never have been this mess either.

The Tories have had a great victory here and the Prime Minister looks at best an opportunist and at worst, a coward.

What would be even more damaging to Gordon's respect in my view is that if some minion gets the blame for this. Gordon is the leader - he allowed this to happen and he damn well better take it on the chin.


Re: SNAP GENERAL ELECTION CALLED OFF (#8)

by Andrea on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 05:20:49 PM GMT

The whole thing has been handled quite awfully.


Re: SNAP GENERAL ELECTION CALLED OFF (#10)

by swatantra on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 05:30:55 PM GMT

We'll get over it; I don't think anyone, anyone really seriously wanted it, not even Brown. No, what he has to show is some solid achievements in the year ahead and go to the country on that record. I'm convinced that he can do it and that the Tories will fall apart.


[ Parent ]

Re: SNAP GENERAL ELECTION CALLED OFF (#11)

by Andrea on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 05:42:28 PM GMT

I suspect the media narrative will change in the next few weeks and for worse for Labour.
British media seem to take up some sort of narrative and continue to go on and on with it as long as they don't get bored...first it was Ming being useless (2006), then they got a bit bored with good old Ming and they throw themself to how not good Gordon actually was and their search for a challenge (late 2006/early 2007), then Brown becames great and Cameron useless (summer 2007), now I think it will change again..


[ Parent ]

Re: SNAP GENERAL ELECTION CALLED OFF (#14)

by Parishpumpspin on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 06:00:12 PM GMT

Its this kind of simplistic anaylisis that stoked the election frenzy in the firstb place. There never was a rational for us to go to the country at this time, any "bottle job" headlines will disappear quickly and by November its back to comparing Brown's gravitas with Cameron's willo-the-wisp. The Lib-Dems have gained a small advantage by the delay, they would have lost up to 20 seats, they can now perhaps focus on where they should, on the Dim/Tory marignals.

June 2009, majority 72.


[ Parent ]

Re: SNAP GENERAL ELECTION CALLED OFF (#9)

by Charlotte Mackenzie on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 05:30:39 PM GMT

I think it is the right decision not to have a general election this autumn. Labour has a mandate until summer 2010 and there is so much we need to do. Brown's first 100 days show he is capable of calm and measured decisions under pressure and in the face of unexpected events. Commentators including BBC are already suggesting this will damage Labour morale, but members and supporters I've been speaking to in the last few weeks including at conference wanted Gordon to take the decision he has.


Re: SNAP GENERAL ELECTION CALLED OFF (#13)

by Loz on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 05:56:06 PM GMT

A shambles.

Poorly advised - to hold an election just following the conference season would have been MADNESS.

Especially as the Tories had theirs last.

I hope heads roll for this - for it could very nearly have been Browns.

No election this year, and apparently next.

I agree - the country will get over it, but Cameron has enough ammunition for a few sounbites to keep him going.

He (Brown) had better be as bloody good as we all hope and believe he is. No more soundbites, pathetic PR shows - just get on with the job, and do what the British people expect. 


Re: SNAP GENERAL ELECTION CALLED OFF (#15)

by NorthernMonkey on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 07:34:45 PM GMT

Indeed. Firstly, Brown needs to stop surrounding himself with people who tell him what he wants to hear rather than what is necessary. In my opinion, Douglas Alexander should never have been appointed to co-ordinate the election, he just doesn't have the experience or maturity to do so. Same applies to Ed Miliband who's writing the manifesto. And even Ed Balls who made a mess of things by stoking up election fever.

The trouble with Brown is that unlike Blair, he has no rival in government to keep him in check. Brown constantly badgered Blair when he was Chancellor, but who has Brown appointed as Chancellor? Alistair Darling - he's hardly going to stand up to Brown is he? Plus there's not even a Deputy Prime Minister now either. Brown has all the power and holds all the cards, but in the long run this is doing him more damage than good.


[ Parent ]

Re: SNAP GENERAL ELECTION CALLED OFF (#18)

by doctordunc on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 08:43:17 PM GMT

John McDonnell for Chancellor?


[ Parent ]

Re: SNAP GENERAL ELECTION CALLED OFF (#21)

by NorthernMonkey on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 10:26:06 PM GMT

Nice try!


[ Parent ]

Re: SNAP GENERAL ELECTION CALLED OFF (#16)

by CitizenAndreas on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 08:14:42 PM GMT

Ok, it's all a bit embarrassing, but lets not forget that although there a few high ranking types might have briefed on the possibility of election. Plenty of the hysteria was whipped up by the media and Tories who eventually managed to make the whole snap election part of their media strategy.

Lets not use this as an excuse to indulge in self immolation.

Personally I'm far more disappointed that so many people were swayed by the idea of a tax cut that will only benefit the rich.


Re: SNAP GENERAL ELECTION CALLED OFF (#17)

by NorthernMonkey on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 08:42:47 PM GMT

Personally I'm far more disappointed that so many people were swayed by the idea of a tax cut that will only benefit the rich.

Me too. I think half of those who support cuts in IHT don't even realise they probably wouldn't pay anything under the current system anyway. From my experience, I've found that the public are generally very misinformed about the inheritance tax. It's up to the government to make the people understand why the current system is perfectly fair and only affects 7% of estates.


[ Parent ]

Re: SNAP GENERAL ELECTION CALLED OFF (#19)

by Otleyred on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 09:08:57 PM GMT

Northern Monkey - I am not rich, but do not like to think that my parents worked all their lives, and have seen a house they have lived in for 40 years increase in value to take them over the threshold.  That is by the by. Back to the story.

"Flash" Gordon has shot himself in the foot over this one. We never have had a better chance to win and to destroy the Tories. He has shown himself to be gutless. The Tories would not have won, were nowhere near prepared and they played Gordon right into their hands.

Come back Tony - all is forgiven. You should have sacked him ten years ago!


Re: SNAP GENERAL ELECTION CALLED OFF (#22)

by NorthernMonkey on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 10:33:03 PM GMT

Well I'm afraid if you have an estate worth £300,000 or more (and remember that's all of your assets minus any debt you owe including unpaid mortgages) then you are certainly at the top end of the wealth scale in this country. Therefore if you believe in a progressive tax system like I do, you must accept that you should pay your fair share of tax.


40% tax for over £300,000 is a perfectly fair threshold (which will rise to £350,000 soon) and as I said before, only 7% of estates will pay this at the time of death.


Under the Tories absurd proposals, a family could inherit a £1million house and not pay a single penny of tax on it even though they haven't done a day's work to earn it or deserve it. That goes against meritocracy and it goes against social democracy. I sincerely hope Brown attacks this Tory position rather than appeases it and copies their every move.


[ Parent ]

Re: SNAP GENERAL ELECTION CALLED OFF (#26)

by laurencemarshall on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 11:17:15 AM GMT

The average house price in London is now £400,000 according to the Land Registry. How is it that an average person in London is top of the wealth scale? It may seem to someone in the north as fair, but to people in the south it's punitive and smacks of old style socialism where people are taxed till the pips squeak. Also, the 7% statistic is a few months old now, and most likely inaccurate, kindly stop quoting it like scripture.
 
I'm in favour of the death tax per se, but the current situation is special. We've had poor investment in transport and house building, causing prices to spiral to extraordinary levels. To be in favour of the current system is to justify the incompetence of both shades of goverment and to also believe in policy by accident, not original intention.

Taxing extraordinary situations always gos against people sense of natural justice, fuel prices being another example. We should always be willing to amend tax rules and not fall into situations where taxation becomes a unintended trap.

Not raising the inheritance tax threshold along with house prices is both grossly unfair and, looking at what happened this week, electoral suicide.


[ Parent ]

Re: SNAP GENERAL ELECTION CALLED OFF (#29)

by NorthernMonkey on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 02:07:13 PM GMT

So what if the average house price in London is £400,000? Firstly, you're assuming that everyone owns their own house - they don't. Plenty of people live in rented accomodation, or housing association accomodation or council housing, so this statistic doesn't apply one bit for them.

Secondly, you're assuming that every person who lives in these £400,000 houses has paid off their entire mortgage. Most haven't. If when you die you have a £400k house but you still have £150k to pay off on the mortgage then your estate is £250k and you're exempt from IHT.

Thirdly, you've failed to take into account other assets and liabilities. It isn't just about houses you know. If people have racked up thousands of pounds of credit card debt then that needs to be knocked off the value of the estate when they die too.

Fourthly, you're sounding as though the person living in the house will have to pay this - they don't. It's their children who pay it. Those children most likely already have a home of their own, so why should those children who are lucky enough to have rich parents get to inherit yet another house and not pay a penny of tax on it when they haven't worked a day in their lives to earn it?

Fifthly, it's not as if the entire estate gets taken off them anyway is it? You don't pay any tax on the first £300,000 (soon to be £350,000) which is a huge amount of money by most people's standards. And then its only 40% over £300k. People can't complain about this since they haven't worked to earn this money - they're inheriting it from someone else's labour.

Sixthly, don't fall into this media trap that assumes most people in this country live in this mythical 'middle England' - they don't. The vast majority of people in this country will never see anything remotely like £300,000 in their lives and you should remember that.

Seventhly, why are you using terms like the 'death tax' and 'until the pips squeak' which play right into the Tories' hands when they're trying to mislead the public? If you are a Tory then fine, but please say so. And if you're a Labour supporter, you should question whether using those terms is appropriate. Please stop kindly using those phrases like scripture.

Eighthly, as a progressive party we should always believe in a progressive tax system and that means the rich should pay a higher share than the poor. This is not envy or pulling down the rich, but simple common sense and fairness. It's far fairer to tax people on inheritance which they haven't earned themselves rather than income which they have earned themselves.


And finally (!), the 7% statistic is absolutely true and valid. The Tories don't like us using it because it ruins their lies and efforts to mislead. But hey, why let facts get in the way of a good story?


[ Parent ]

Re: SNAP GENERAL ELECTION CALLED OFF (#30)

by CitizenAndreas on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 02:22:47 PM GMT

**Applauds**


[ Parent ]

Re: SNAP GENERAL ELECTION CALLED OFF (#31)

by doctordunc on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 03:15:50 PM GMT

Quite right.  I shall save this response on my computer somewhere to roll out during the election campaign (whenever that might be...)


[ Parent ]

Re: SNAP GENERAL ELECTION CALLED OFF (#37)

by NorthernMonkey on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 06:40:53 PM GMT

Feel free to distribute it wherever you see fit!


[ Parent ]

Re: SNAP GENERAL ELECTION CALLED OFF (#33)

by laurencemarshall on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 04:09:38 PM GMT

1) I never said that everyone did own their own home. It still doesn't affect the fact that your average house price in London is still near £400k and rising. And the vast majority of property is still owner occupied (70%). Taxing the average estate on that top £100k is still puniative, and often means the sale of a 3 bedroom family home, hardly the rich middle England that you as a northerner seem to imply that London is.
 
2) Evidence???? Certainly more recently there would be problem of morgages, but punishing the descendents of those who've paid their mortgages is hardly fair. God knows where you got your £150k from, but I could easily say that an average mortgage would be about 75k. Making up figures is easy. 

3) Property is by far the biggest asset in any estate. Considering the modern rate of depreciation, most other assets aren't worth much.

4) Trying living in London, children can't afford to move out to buy their own home anymore. As a 27 year old, I still have many friends who can't afford to move out of the parental home. The only hope they have is to live in the parental or grandparental home once they have gone. A house is also a home, why should the children lose their family home?  

5) 40% of 100k is still 40K. And thats a lot of money and could easily prompt the sale of a home. Also, I take it you're in favour of 100% inheritance tax as since all inherited wealth is never directly earned, which is the logical conclusion of most of your arguements. I, on the other hand, am in favour of some inherited wealth, especially from the current bubble, since it can give rise to investment in the economy that punitive taxation stifles.

6) Yes, but as I said in my original post, the £300k is article in any case, it's the product of bad housing policy.

7) Is it not a tax leavied when people die? Sounds accurate to me. As for the "pips squeak" comment, that's a quote from Healey, read a bit more. As for scripture, I only quoted the two phrases once, as compared to you quoting the 7% figure numerous times.

8) The average Londoner isn't rich and neither are their kids.

9) The 7% figure is old. In August alone house prices where I live have gone up 3.5%, which can easily push prices over the £300k barrier. Connsidering the figure was quoted in Brown's last budget and probably calculated before this, it is obviously incorrect. 

Check your facts, and leave the north once in a while.

Oh, and you might like to address the points in my orginal post about how we've let the situation get to how it is and not as a distinct policy agenda, as opposed to rehashing the same old arguements. 

Incidentally, I am a Labour member, and i'm not looking forward to watching marginal seats like Battersea fall in London partly due to inheritance tax issues.


[ Parent ]

Re: SNAP GENERAL ELECTION CALLED OFF (#36)

by NorthernMonkey on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 06:38:41 PM GMT

1) House prices do not automatically equate to estate wealth at the time of death. As I said, so what if the house price in London is near £400k? Most people in this country don't live in London, most Londoners don't live in a house that they own worth over £300k, plus they may have other liabilities to pay off as well at the time of death. If the children have to sell off their parents' house then so what? They're still getting a huge cash bonus which they can surely by a house that's nearly as good.


2) Why do you think £150k for a mortgage is an unreasonable figure? If someone buys a £400,000 house then they have well over £400,000 to pay off as a mortgage usually over 25 / 30 years. Many people who die still have big chunks of their mortgages to pay off.

3) How much assets are worth varies from situation to situation. And as you pointed out, 30% of households don't own any property at all which we must remember here.


4) You talk as though people's parents could all drop dead tomorrow! Most people don't see their parents die until they themselves are in their 50's. Are you telling me that people wait until they are in their 50's to finally get a house? Younger people do eventually manage to get on the property ladder and the government is helping things by building far more houses over the next 10 years. And as I said, if children have to sell off their parents' house then so be it. They'll still recieve a massive cash payout to buy a decent house somewhere else. Eg. If someone sells their parent's house worth £500,000 they'll still keep £420,000 of it themselves - hardly a hardship is it?

You must also remember that children whose parents live in a council house or rented accommodation won't inherit any property at all, so why should people who are lucky enough to have wealthy parents get all of the assets without making a contribution to society from it?

5) 40% is a perfectly fair amount and I'm content with the current system. Children will still inherit huge amounts but at least wealthy families will give something back to society since they themselves haven't actually earnt that money themselves, but are instead profiting off other people's hard work.


6) It's moving up to £350k which is a £50,000 rise which is large by anybody's standards.


7) It's a tax paid by the children, who quite frankly, should consider themselves lucky to be inheriting such a large amount of money, which most people will never see in their entire lifetime.


Everyone knows Healey made the "pips squeak" comment but the Tories now use it against us to encourage people to think that we hate rich people. So you shouldn't be using this phrase and doing the Tories' work for them.

8) Exactly, and the vast majority of Londoners will never pay inheritance tax under the current system.

9) No one has proved otherwise yet so the 7% figure stands and I can well believe it is that amount too.


You may think the North is full of poverty and deprivation but you might want to come up and visit the 'provinces' once in a while, you might be surprised. And if you try hard enough you might even like it here!


Fundamentally, we are a progressive party which believes in a progressive tax system. This doesn't mean being envious of the rich or dragging them down, it means that the rich pay their fair share to society.


£300k (and soon to be £350k) is a hell of a lot of money and most people in this country will never see such an amount in their lives.


If you're lucky enough to have parents or grandparents with such wealth Laurence, then you should consider yourself lucky and grateful that you'll get such a big cash payout one day rather than moaning about having to make a relatively small contribution to society which will help those less fortunate than yourself.


[ Parent ]

Re: SNAP GENERAL ELECTION CALLED OFF (#40)

by laurencemarshall on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 08:06:52 PM GMT

1) So basically you are saying that London doesn't matter, and that families in London should suffer because of where they live.

"Most Londoners don't live in a house that they own worth over £300k"

Considering the average price is around £400k and still rising, it's not exactly a stretch to say that they do. Seeing how the average is £400k, and £300k is a quarter under that, it's a perfectly reasonable thing to say that the death tax is going to hit most Londoners, if not now, then in the future. As for the liabilities, yes they will devalue the estate, but at £400k and rising they are going to start making less of a dent.

As for the kids, why should they have to sell what is likely to be their family home? Again, a house is not just a home. You really aren't considering the human element here.

2) You are forgetting that house prices were less in the past! If we're are talking about 25 years ago, then mortgages would have been far far less even adjusting for inflation. £100k or less would be a fairer estimate. 

3) Yes and your point? You only need to affect a insecure minority for a tax to be oppressive and unfair.

4) Firstly, peoples parents do drop dead occasionally, and this is really why people hate the death tax, it could easily happen to them through no fault of their own! Being kicked out of your family home because of a punitive tax in hardly just. The rich (the real rich, not your pretendy rich) have accountants to sort this all out, the average Londoner who bought their house before the boom doesn't.

5) So really we are talking about detail then! I'd propose an accumulator tax on the top 25% of housing (assets should be seperate) on a region to region basis. After all, we have London allowances for wages, why not the death tax. Better yet, why don't we simply impose a tax on housing use. For example, if the kids want to sell the house, levy a tax. If they want to let it out, put more tax on it. If the keep it and live in it, then don't tax it. All of these would be far more acceptable to the electorate than the current system.

6) That's not what the public think, or indeed our great leader according to todays news. It was an easy policy for the Tories to hit us on, simply because it obviously upsets people. This is what happens when the tax system doesn't change with the market and society. I again give the example of fuel prices and the escalator. I like to think about policies like this, pretend that the death tax doesn't exist, and assess what would happen if you imposed it to today. The answer would be that it would be levied at a higher level.

7) See the latter point of 1), don't forget the human element.

It isn't about taxing the rich anymore, it's about taxing those under what should be considered rich. And that's why we took a hit in the polls.

8) Rubbish, a substantial amount will under current trends.


9) As someone with a economics degree, i've already explained why it is likely to incorrect and don't expect to have to explain it again. 

I'd really like you to reply to the first post I made about the extraordinary nature of the current situation, as opposed to the rehash of the arguements for the death tax you made in your first post.


[ Parent ]

Re: SNAP GENERAL ELECTION CALLED OFF (#41)

by NorthernMonkey on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 10:13:46 PM GMT

1) Stop calling it the 'death tax' or you're making me suspicious of whether you are actually a Labour supporter.


The threshold is being raised to £350k and will probably be raised again.


The human element? What about children whose parents own a council house and inherit nothing? What about the human element there? A progressive Labour party should believe that those who are lucky enough to have decent wealth should make a greater contribution to society. I don't understand why you have a problem with this.


2) Hmm, I'm not sure you understood what I meant. If people buy a £400k house then they have over £400k to pay back as a mortgage. Plenty of people die half way through having to pay that mortgage off either because they die young or because they buy late on in life and have long-term mortgages.


3) Insecure minority?! We're talking about the wealthiest 7% of households here! They're hardly something to cry about are they!


4) Being kicked out of a family home.....and still getting a huge lump sum to buy a great house somewhere else. If the house is worth less than £300k then no tax is paid. Say if it is worth £500k then they still keep £420k of it. Are you telling me that you cannot be a decent house for £420k? It might not be the same house but so what? They have to pay their fair share of tax as part of a progressive system. They're still getting their hands on a huge lump sum which most of the population will never see.


5) I think the current system is fine. You may not like paying a small contribution when you inherit a house, but taxation should be fair and progressive.

6) But that's not reality. The fact is inheritance tax does exist and it's a case of whether you want it to be progressive (like we have now) or should we have greater tax cuts for the rich (which the Tories want).

7) £300k (soon to be £350k) is rich by most people's standards and is well above average (top 7% remember!)

8) No, the vast majority of Londoners will never pay inheritance tax. The threshold is already being raised sufficiently and I'm sure it will be raised again in the near future.


9) As someone who also has an economics degree (and also a Master's in economics too I might add!) I have already explained the flaws in your logic.


There's nothing extraordinary about the current situation whatsoever. Only deluded Tories think there is, but that's because of their in-built greed and sense of privilege. Rich people pay more tax than poor people - shock horror!


[ Parent ]

Re: SNAP GENERAL ELECTION CALLED OFF (#42)

by swatantra on Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 09:28:09 AM GMT

So the Tories sold off council houses and now they want to keep those very same people in their grasp, by playing up to them. Its the ugly face of the politics of greed again. IHT is unearned income, it is right that it be taxed. Will Hutton made an excellent argument this morning on R4. Property has to pass through generations, not necessarily to the next generation, and the tax is a fairer redistribution of wealth. He would set the tax at around £0.5 million, to take account of the London effect. I would prefer £300 000 and a progressive rate. The Govt needs to act but not give in to the greed of the property market. 


[ Parent ]

Re: SNAP GENERAL ELECTION CALLED OFF (#44)

by rwendland on Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 02:18:21 PM GMT

Will Hutton made an excellent point that we need some level of IHT (even as low as 10%) to force the circulation of properties through the market, so people are more likely to choose appropriate sized houses to their needs, and the UK housing stock is thus used more effectively. With zero IHT inertia will tend to keep houses too large for current needs in a family - it can be emotionally difficult to sell the childhood home when parents die unless something forces the issue. If there is a real need for that house in the family, a small amount of IHT will be paid by whoever inherits it.

I think Will Hutton was indirectly arguing for a lower band of IHT before the 40% cut in.  Maybe 10% 350-500k, 25% 500-1000k, 40% over 1 million?


[ Parent ]

Re: SNAP GENERAL ELECTION CALLED OFF (#43)

by PJP on Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 01:37:36 PM GMT

Northern Monkey seems to forget that in actual fact, tax has already been paid by those wealthy enough to afford a house over the value 300k to the tune of 40% all of their lives. Having paid tax all their life, to then be taxed  ANOTHER 40% upon death (hence death tax) seems ludicrous to most of the country. Just see the latest opinion polls.

As for the '7%' debate, although only 7% of estates are affected, you have to times that number by 2.5 children and x amount of grandchildren to gather the number of PEOPLE affected. And that figure, of course, is the more important one in terms of votes and majority thinking.   


[ Parent ]

Re: SNAP GENERAL ELECTION CALLED OFF (#45)

by rwendland on Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 02:23:30 PM GMT

> to then be taxed  ANOTHER 40% upon death

Not if IHT is zero. Someone inherits a house (zero IHT), then passes it on to the next generation (zero IHT again). No tax is ever paid on the asset, it just passes down the generations essentially tax free. i.e. this is exactly the opposite of equality-of-opportunity from birth.


[ Parent ]

Re: SNAP GENERAL ELECTION CALLED OFF (#46)

by PJP on Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 02:31:50 PM GMT

If a house has been in a family for generations, that family is likely to be rich enough to avoid IHT anyway...it's sad, but true.

Those affected are almost always the second generation...
 


[ Parent ]

Re: SNAP GENERAL ELECTION CALLED OFF (#49)

by rwendland on Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 04:50:52 PM GMT

True. But don't the legal IHT avoidance wheezes generally make the asset liable to capital gains tax instead? e.g holding the family house thru a company removes the CGT exemption for your primary residence.

I suspect removing IHT would create a lot more inter-generational family houses, removing housing stock from the general market and reducing social mobility.

It strikes me death is the very best time to apply a tax; no impact on the "owner", and enhancing overall equality of opportunity from birth! 

Of course hiding ownership via foreign companies/trusts gets around this, but doesn't doing that legally involve expensive advisors and agents, and maybe living abroad for some time? So this is only suitable for the seriously rich - a smaller number. 


[ Parent ]

Re: SNAP GENERAL ELECTION CALLED OFF (#56)

by darkhorse on Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 11:15:09 PM GMT

Northern Monkey is absolutely right. Inheritence Tax is not only a fair tax, but because it's a tax on wealth and not income it doesn't distort incentives to work. And unlike indirect taxes on consumption, which tend to weigh heaviest on the poor, it only really affects the rich and certainly doesn't affect the most vulnerable and poor. From a principled point of view  whether "rich" means the top 7% or 10% or 15% is academic to me.

But that we're having this debate in this forum suggests that the idea of removing has some electoral appeal, in way that, say, reducing the top rate of Income Tax or Corporation Tax would not. That suggests that those of us who believe in Inheritence Tax - and more importantly, the fundamental principles underlying it - have some persuading to do. We can't let the Daily Mail set the agenda with talk of "death taxes" and "taxing your dear dead Granny".

So let's be clear: we believe that it is right to tax the relatively well-off and the very rich, including those who have arbitrarily benefited from recent asset price inflation, to make our society as a whole better. We also observe that taxing wealth is economically efficient. Therefore we believe in an equitable inheritence tax regime, such as the one that we have got today.



[ Parent ]

Re: SNAP GENERAL ELECTION CALLED OFF (#47)

by CitizenAndreas on Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 04:05:36 PM GMT

The double tax argument is not some new revelation, but an incredibly lame argument that falls apart on close examination.

The idea that you should not be taxed twice in any situation is just plain impractical. It equally applies to the likes of VAT, cigarette duty, petrol duty etc. The only practical way of doing this would be to eliminate all taxes bar income tax. An idea that may delight the hearts of mad frothing anarcho capitalists, but not may others.

As for your take on the 7% figure, 7% of estates translates to approximately 7% of inheritors, give or take. Let us say that in any year there are 50,000 estates passed on. This would mean that there would be about 125,000 inheritors. This would mean about 3,500 estates would be liable for inheritance tax and that about 8,750 of the inheritors would have to give up a little of their inheritance. Again a pretty lame argument.


[ Parent ]

Re: SNAP GENERAL ELECTION CALLED OFF (#52)

by NorthernMonkey on Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 07:16:34 PM GMT

PJP, opinion polls aren't how we should form every single policy. Just because something is popular does not necessarily make it just or fair.


And with regards to being taxed twice, as has been pointed out, that's like saying since we pay income tax on our earnings then we shouldn't have to pay VAT when we then spend those earnings because we'd be taxed twice. But of course, everybody in this country will have been 'taxed twice' and more many times. There's no law that says we can only be taxed once and arguing that we should only be taxed once is unworkable and ridiculous.


[ Parent ]

Re: SNAP GENERAL ELECTION CALLED OFF (#53)

by PJP on Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 10:57:48 PM GMT

"True. But don't the legal IHT avoidance wheezes generally make the asset liable to capital gains tax instead? e.g holding the family house thru a company removes the CGT exemption for your primary residence."

Unfortuantly, there are other ways around the tax for the super rich! Placing a house in the possesion of a relative for 7 years avoids the tax completely, but without a good accountant one is unlikely to know such tricks!

As for VAT and IHT being compared - that is foolish. You CHOOSE to buy petrol, you CHOOSE to buy alcohol etc. You do not choose to die. VAT is tax upon things that one does not need but chooses to buy anyway - not upon a death that no one has a choice upon. This tax was created to tackle the 'mega wealthy' and now punishes hard working citizens.


[ Parent ]

Re: SNAP GENERAL ELECTION CALLED OFF (#54)

by PJP on Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 11:03:06 PM GMT

" According to research by Scottish Widows, 37 per cent of households now have an estate with a value above the threshold."

From this article in the times. Will try and find the official figures from Scottish Widows. So much for 7%..


[ Parent ]

Re: SNAP GENERAL ELECTION CALLED OFF (#55)

by PJP on Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 11:05:06 PM GMT

Look at this.

Still sticking to the 7% and only the wealthy paying IHT line?


[ Parent ]

Re: SNAP GENERAL ELECTION CALLED OFF (#57)

by CitizenAndreas on Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 12:18:12 AM GMT

A little clever statistical trickery, designed with the intention of selling financial products. The fact is that the taxman knows about all estates, they know how many are liable and at last count over the chosen sampling period. That figure is 7% it is a very easy figure to gather and a simple calculation to make, so yes, I'm sticking to the 7% figure and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

As for your counter argument on VAT, you are now arguing that a tax is unfair if you both have to choose to pay it and it is a form of double taxation. That's just splitting hairs.

And of course that's before all the compelling pro IHT arguments such as the fact that it's a tax on money that someone has had to do absolutely no work for. The fact that it works to break the hold over wealth between the generations to allow more equitable distribution of wealth.

 


[ Parent ]

Re: SNAP GENERAL ELECTION CALLED OFF (#59)

by PJP on Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 10:27:33 AM GMT

" had to do absolutely no work for."

But their parents worked very, very hard for. If they worked hard to earn the money, they have a right to leave their children a secure financial future.

"That's just splitting hairs."

That's really the best response you can come up with? It is the left wing's complete lack of understanding of the public desire for choice, that led to the ultimate failure of the left wing in British politics.

There are other ways of re-distributing wealth, without taxing citizens upon death.


 


[ Parent ]

Re: SNAP GENERAL ELECTION CALLED OFF (#61)

by swatantra on Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 11:29:46 AM GMT

There's a saying, 'money begets money'; so those with inherited wealth start with an advantage, with access to everything going, education, health, and housing. In my opinion, 'choice' is an overated word; there is frankly to much choice around. All people really want is a decent level of service, not 'excellent', another overrated word, but just decent. Tell me about the other ways of redistributing wealth.


[ Parent ]

Re: SNAP GENERAL ELECTION CALLED OFF (#62)

by PJP on Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 12:12:40 PM GMT

Taxing anyone with more than one house 50% on profits made instead of 40%

 
Taxing the foreign nationals who live here either 25k, or let them pay normal tax etc

 
Increasing tax on city bonuses?

 
Quite a few different ways to make the same amount of money that could then be re-distributed as needed.


[ Parent ]

Re: SNAP GENERAL ELECTION CALLED OFF (#63)

by CitizenAndreas on Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 01:16:52 PM GMT

It's the best I can be bothered with just before bed. And it is just splitting hairs, you first advocated the principle of double taxation. This was proved wrong by such taxes as VAT, fuel duty etc. You fell back on a position of adding choice to this principle. In that is wrong for you to pay a second level of taxation unless you make a concious choice to accept that taxation.

I'm not sure what definition of choice you're attempting to go by here but in order to go through life avoiding double taxation would be close to impossibleve to make sume very serious sacrifices in your lifestyle, in Britain or for that matter any other nation state.

The ultimate point is that there is no philosophical justification for the idea of double taxation being wrong beyond it being an arbitary argument created by the anti inheritance tax brigade.

On your point on hard work, that is the reason why there is a threshold and a rate of inheritance tax rather than a 100% rate on all property. This rate is set to an amount that is above what most people (93% or so) aquire during their lifetimes through the fruits of their labour. For reasons why a limit it's worth setting a limit at this level, I look to Marx's theory of primitive accumulation.


[ Parent ]

Re: SNAP GENERAL ELECTION CALLED OFF (#65)

by PJP on Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 02:21:16 PM GMT

Fair enough, it was getting late!

Thinking about it more - it seems it is more like triple tax as one works hard and 20/40% is taken in income tax, then VAT is paid on most items and then you are taxed again upon death. So let us call it triple tax...The problem people have with it, is that the govt. is squeezing even more money out of citizens that work hard when the money could be raised in other ways. (See other comment)

On the threshold point, see the article I linked pointing out in 2005 around  34% of people had houses above the IHT threshold. With rising housing prices that will be much higher now. The limit should be raised to at least £600,000 if not higher. A tiered system makes sense to me ie 10% above £500k, 23%  above £750k and 40% above £1m


[ Parent ]

Re: SNAP GENERAL ELECTION CALLED OFF (#66)

by rwendland on Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 02:38:01 PM GMT

> in 2005 around 34% of people had houses above the IHT threshold [therefore] The limit should be raised to at least £600,000 if not higher.

I'd hazard a guess that most of "34% of people" are in fact couples, not individuals, so frequently between them already have £700k of IHT exemption. Couples in this situation I believe do IHT tax planning such that the first partner does not leave his/her 50% to their partner, but to the children, so they achieve £700k IHT exemption.  Thus increasing the individual threshold to £600k gives couples £1.2 million exemption.

Perhaps the new rules should explicitly tackle this common "couples" situation, so this kind of IHT planning becomes unnecessary.  Though it does go against the grain of individual taxation.


[ Parent ]

Re: SNAP GENERAL ELECTION CALLED OFF (#67)

by rwendland on Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 04:06:57 PM GMT

WOW - I pre-guessed the Chancellor!  He's just announced the IHT threshold will be transferable between couples - so the headline threshold is doubled to £600k. Simplifying it for couples, so the IHT planning industry has taken a big hit! Backdating it was nice as well.


[ Parent ]

Re: SNAP GENERAL ELECTION CALLED OFF (#68)

by PJP on Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 04:53:29 PM GMT

I definitly will not complain at that policy! Increasing the threshold and encouraging marriage/family at the same time seems a shrewd move.


[ Parent ]

Re: SNAP GENERAL ELECTION CALLED OFF (#69)

by swatantra on Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 05:20:11 PM GMT

A good move.


[ Parent ]

Re: SNAP GENERAL ELECTION CALLED OFF (#58)

by NorthernMonkey on Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 01:44:43 AM GMT

It's nothing to do with being hard working - it's the children who pay it, not the hard working people themselves. People who inherit vast fortunes are benefiting from other people's hard work, not their own.


And people do not choose to purchase goods which have VAT on them - they have no choice. Try going through life avoiding every product which has VAT or excise duty slapped on it - it's practically impossible. So everybody in this country gets taxed multiple times through no choice of their own, so there's nothing wrong with being taxed through IHT.


[ Parent ]

Re: SNAP GENERAL ELECTION CALLED OFF (#60)

by PJP on Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 10:32:36 AM GMT

Essentials do not have VAT attatched to them..

 

And the parents worked hard to earn the right for their children to be secure. 


[ Parent ]

Re: SNAP GENERAL ELECTION CALLED OFF (#64)

by NorthernMonkey on Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 01:44:23 PM GMT

Essentials like clothes for adults you mean? And somehow I don't think most people in this country would be too happy without TV's, cars, computers, refrigerators, washing machines etc. all of which you pay VAT on.


[ Parent ]

Prudence Has Spoken (#20)

by grayee on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 09:59:37 PM GMT

Hang on folks, Prudence has spoken.   Remember this caution is one of the reasons why he was re-elected unopposed.  Yes, Gordon probably wanted to hold a snap election soon after he took over to give him a clearer mandate; Yes, there appeared to be an opportunity too good to dismiss after Tory disarray during the summer and deft handling by Gordon of critical events. 


However, remember WYSIWYG and if Gordon decided this was not the best time to hold an election then we can expect nothing less than for him to say no.


Re: SNAP GENERAL ELECTION CALLED OFF (#24)

by sgthowie on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 04:48:42 AM GMT

Why oh why did we get in this situation????  We got a mandate just over two years ago.

It seems that all the young advisors round Brown have hyped this snap election up.  Again, this is treating the electorate with contempt and turning politics into some advertising game rather than a serious, thoughtful debate about the future of the country.

All the media hype, manipulation and spin has caused this.  It has not been helped by Barbara Roche 'there is an 80% chance of an election' and Ruth Kelly 'be careful what you wish for....'.  Rather than fulfilling a long term radical programme most of these pillock advisors who have come with New Labour see politics as a short term, transient game in which manipulation of the public and media through soundbites and speculation is seen as the way forward.


Because of this Cameron/Osborne are right, it seems like we have bottled it.  This should have never happened in the first place.


Re: SNAP GENERAL ELECTION CALLED OFF (#27)

by Mark Colburn on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 01:33:42 PM GMT

The trouble for Brown is that yesterday's announcement is one of those defining moments in politics. The public will have formed an impression of him and everything he says from now on is going to be filtered through that perception. It seems that Gordon's honeymoon is over and that cynicism with Labour is back.

 


Re: SNAP GENERAL ELECTION CALLED OFF (#38)

by Parishpumpspin on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 07:03:33 PM GMT

lets explore this "defining moment" thing...so sometime in the next 2+ years Brown will, disengage us from Iraq, be a major player on the world stage, make extensive policy announcements across a wide swaith of social issues, try to ensure his economic legacy from being Chancellor isn't squandered, flag-up the constitutional issues still to be addresed and last but not least bring a semblence of real unity to the party.....except according to Mr Colburn, he will be "defined" by not calling an election most of us didn't want!  Perhaps the more interesting way of looking at it is to note that we have a good 18months in which to produce Mr Cameron's perceptive "defining moment" whilst OUR PM produces a record of substance.


[ Parent ]

Re: SNAP GENERAL ELECTION CALLED OFF (#28)

by bigpapi on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 01:39:02 PM GMT

To quote Michael Winner (not something I'm prone to do!) "calm down, dear, calm down"!

So we let the media bounce us into talking about an election in November, but realistically it was never going to happen, unless somebody ignored reality.  Go back to Conference and listen to Jim Knight (of whom I'm not a fan) he spoke for most MPs in marginal seats when he said there should be no rush to an election as they weren't ready.

People on here who have been whingeing about delays in selections should be welcoming this: now Nottingham South, etc., should be able to select the candidate of their choice.

Cameron won't be able to keep his Party together until 2009, whereas the decision not to go seems to have re-united the PLP.  A solid CSR and Pre-Budget Report on Tuesday will soon distract attention, especially if Brown comes out fighting at PMQ's on Wednesday.  The LibDems will be having nightmares, as a 2009 election makes Sir Ming 68, and that means they're almost certain to have a leadership election before then - is Nick Clegg really prepared to wait until 2009?  I don't think so.

It also means that all that money Ashcroft has been pouring into the marginals will have evaporated, creating a more level playing field.

Finally it gives us plenty of time to show the Tories Inheritance Tax proposals to be unaffordable, unworkable and unfair.  Please remember that 99% of economists are talking of a gradual reduction of house prices over the next two years, thus taking many of  those properties on the borderline of being liable for IT out of the bracket altogether - and Darling will have two Budgets to tweak the system still further as Gordon did when Chancellor.

As an Agent in a safe seat, I'm much happier today than I was last Sunday.


Re: SNAP GENERAL ELECTION CALLED OFF (#35)

by Mark Colburn on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 06:33:15 PM GMT

We didn't let the media bounce us into anything. We encouraged them to write about it. The election was going to happen despite what Jim Knight or anyone else thought about it, right up till Gordon pulled the plug.

Regional Offices have been busy buying computers, ordering phone lines, setting up websites and all the other bits and pieces needed for a modern election. They wouldn't have been doing that without a very good steer from on high.

As for Lord Ashcroft, I fear his pockets are deeper than you think.

I agree with you about the LibDems but I don't think that's a good thing for us. Ming keeping his job is in our interests.

I am perfectly calm in the current situation, bigpapi, I'm just not sanguine about it.


[ Parent ]

Re: SNAP GENERAL ELECTION CALLED OFF (#32)

by wgm on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 03:23:37 PM GMT

Hang on all those of you quick to blame the "young advisors" - how many of you are in marginal seats looking at 18 months of targetted and sustained Tory campaigning backed by Ashcrofts millions? Just 10 days ago the polls said we could save Lord Ashcroft his dosh and add another 40 seats to our majority. Cameron would have been gone by Christmas and the Tories would have had an impossible mountain to climb in 2012. So should we have thought about it/prepared for it? You bet we should.


Is Ming staying good for labour? (#39)

by rwendland on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 08:04:39 PM GMT

> Ming keeping his job is in our interests.

I'm not sure about that. The NOTW has published the detail of last w/e polling in Tory marginals, and that shows that of the 2005 LibDem voters 69% stuck with the Ming-LibDems, but 23% would vote Tory, and only 8% Labour. If LibDems recovered, it looks like it would hit the Tories more than Labour in marginals.

The detail in the NOTW polling is fascinating, and well worth study.

One lesson is that Labour needs to try to get more of the 18-24 vote out, which supports Labour 41%/30%/29% (Lab/Con/LD), but only 16% is certain to vote (compared to 72% for the Tory supporting 65+ age group).

Another is that 52% think Labour is doing a bad job on the NHS!  (Again 18-24s differ, 65% think Labour is good for NHS.)


Re: SNAP GENERAL ELECTION CALLED OFF (#50)

by Real Labour on Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 07:11:06 PM GMT

The Truth about Modern Politics in the UK

The recent on/off election soap opera shows how disconnected the media and the political class is with the interests of citizens.  Much like the speculation about when Blair would leave, the media and the political class has concentrated on and speculated about an unimportant sideshow within the political process rather than discuss and debate matters which actually matter.  

What people are worried about is the implications and causes of the credit crunch, and finding alternatives to the casino capitalism which rules all our lives; the rising and unsustainable amount of personal debt in this country; the lack of council housing or affordable housing; the UK's transition toward becoming a police state; actual policies for tackling climate change; the repression of trade unionism; the US-UK alliance’s imperial misadventures in the middle east; the lack of a decent minimum wage; the low level of tax paid by the super-rich; the fact that political parties are funded by the super-rich and so represent the interests of the super-rich; the growing privatization of the NHS and education system; and the fact that in this British 'democracy' the political parties are only concerned with carrying the favour of a few swing voters in marginal constituencies in middle-England.

Neither Labour nor the Tories or those in the media will discuss or debate these matters, because both parties are now run by careerist politicians with no discernable values or beliefs who both want power for power's sake; and so the media and the political class control debate within bland narrow parameters which uphold the interests of the bourgeoisie. 

People want control of their own lives, both politically and in the workplace. 

But we won't hear this discussed because the media and the political class have there head so far stuck up their own. . .


Re: SNAP GENERAL ELECTION CALLED OFF (#51)

by Real Labour on Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 07:13:00 PM GMT

A Lion, Three Donkeys and a Mouse

Gordon is a big girls blouse for not calling an election.  He has damaged his image as a courageous lion-hearted big beast of British politics, and handed the Tories momentum.

I have little doubt that he could have put his towering intellect to good use, and have produced a manifesto of substance which would have shown voters that unlike Cameron's Tories, Labour has a practical and progressive plan for Britain. 

Yet when confronted by a mouse like Cameron, - who was aided by a week of favourable coverage by his chums in the media - Gordon cowered, panicked and ran away.

To make matters worse, Brown has chosen to embrace spin; and over the past week this has backfired badly.  Brown refused to rule out an election and allowed Douglas Alexander et al to spin the possibility and then probability of an election. 

Douglas, like his sister Wendy, is too clever by half.  His competence must be questioned after the disastrous Scottish election campaign that he 'masterminded', and after the humiliating fiasco in the same election which led to hundreds of thousands of votes being voided, for which he was also responsible.

Like the other donkeys behind the on/off election spin fiasco, Ed Miliband and Ed Balls, Alexander has risen to become a senior figure in the Brown administration not because of his ability, but because of his loyalty to Brown.

Its time for Gordon to show some bottle and bring wise veteran of the political battleground Charlie Whelan back into the fold, and also bring back Nick Brown as chief whip and give Geoff "Buff" Hoon a job more suited to his intellect, like flipping burgers in McDonalds or something.  He should also make Ken Livingstone party chairman because this would reconnect with the party's base and bring back some credibility to attempts to put the wars behind him.

"Get some greybeards around you.  Politics is an adult board game; you can't win anything with kids"



SNAP GENERAL ELECTION CALLED OFF | 69 comments (69 topical)