Will changes to tax credits prove to be Osbournes Poll Tax?

[SasWestisBest]

He seems to love her so much, is her trying to emulate her in that he is sowing the seeds of his own destruction?

With poll tax people could protest by not paying. Ultimately thats why it was abolished so quickly.

With tax credits whats the recourse?

No, because the majority are not affected whereas with the poll tax, everyone was in the same boat.

No because of the reasons given by claig

I think that if the poor are worse off after every tax cut from 2010 and will be so after the rises in the Minimum Wage, it will go down like a political cup of cold sick - but Osborne has a Budget next April to correct it.

The Poll Tax, like the Bedroom Tax (designed to free up bedrooms for 5 million queuing for social housing) was not so bad really, as its main purpose was to have a household pay council rates per person in the household - but became a political cause for the left to rally behind.

As if the COST of Council services was the real issue, surely with these rises in its English replacement, with the annual rises and direction of travel, there would have been mass demonstrations every year.

Total Council Tax increases Band D from 1997/8 to 2009/10

North East……...£782 to £1,479 an increase of 89%

North West…......£798 to £1,441 an increase of 81%

East Midlands…..£705 to £1,454 an increase of 106%

West Midlands…..£701 to £1,388 an increase of 98%

Yorks/Humber…..£710 to £1,380 an increase of 99%

London………..…£651 to £1,308 an increase of 101%

East of England...£639 to £1,450 an increase of 127%

South East……...£641 to £1,437 an increase of 124%

South West……..£667 to £1,1462 an increase of 119%

Are those figures about Labour or Osborne?

I hate to say "Claig is right".

But Claid is right.

Labour are screwed if they believe that there is a political market in complaining, as a major plank in the platform, about bedroom tax and tax credits. It just doesn't affect enough people, and very few of those that are affected are swing voters in marginals. On the other hand, there are a lot of voters, including historic Labour voters in marginals, for whom the Tory "shirkers vs strivers" narrative, awful though it is, resonates. So to continue Ed's mistake and make this a major campaigning point is electoral self-immolation: it doesn't get votes we need (people who voted Tory or didn't vote last time but might return to Labour in marginal seats) while gaining vast piles of votes that make no difference (people in Labour safe seats).

Gideon is wrong on this, and he's wrong for the same reason as Gordon Brown was wrong over the abolition of the 10p rate: he believe that an individual family whose finances are hit by it will be happy because their neighbour, in similar but not exactly the same circumstances, is better off. I doesn't work like that, and the distribution of the outcomes matters as much as average. But as an electoral issue, it just doesn't affect sufficient swing voters in marginal seats; the poll tax did, which was its downfall.

Are those figures about Labour or Osborne?

Errr ... the date "FROM" and "TO" gives it away ...please pay attention.

'Errr ... the date "FROM" and "TO" gives it away'

No, your poster name gives it away. Of course it's to do with Labour's record as every one of your posts is, no matter if the subject is the weather or cup cakes.

claig ... DON'T start me on the weather.

'Red sky in the morning .......' lol

No, because the majority are not affected whereas with the poll tax, everyone was in the same boat.

Not the majority, but many many working people will be thousands of pounds worse off because of the rescinding of tax credits:

www.scriptonitedaily.com/2015/10/05/jeremy-hunt-sums-up-the-tory-agenda-for-britain-in-a-single-sentence/

But changes to business rates might. It looks like the teenage whizzkids have been let loose on business rate policy and if teenage party apparatchiks start raising business rates in poorer areas because there is no more redistribution from rich areas to poor areas then businesses may start complaining and poorer areas' residents may be left worse off thank to teenage whizzkid schemes.

"George Osborne's plan to snatch business rate grants from poorest councils slammed as 'race to the bottom'

The 'devolution revolution' means grants which pumped extra money into poor towns will be axed"

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/george-osbornes-plan-snatch-business-6577258

Not the majority, but many many working people will be thousands of pounds worse off

I never said otherwise.

However, the vast majority of people who are affected are one or more of non-voters, Labour voters or living in safe Labour seats. The number of people who are (a) affected by the change and (b) swing voters in marginal seats is very small. And the issue is (rightly or wrongly) not seen by people who are not affected as being a matter of concern. Cuts to tax credits and other benefits are largely seen as a non-issue, and it might even be the case that it is seen as a positively good thing by at least as many people as think it is terrible.

It is not an electoral issue. It wasn't in 2010, it wasn't in 2015, and it won't be in 2020. It is not possible to win an election by assembling a coalition of benefit claimants. I am repeatedly saying this at constituency meetings, but even more now than in late May there are too many people in the Labour Party who confuse righteous indignation amongst people who agree with each other with being able to win an election. This was Labour's 35% strategy, and it is a completely busted flush.

If a Labour Party gets into office, it can, should and will reverse these destructive and divisive policies. But it cannot get elected with this as a major part of its manifesto: there just aren't the votes in it.

did anyone see the channel 4 news tonight, discussing the tax credits cuts? the reporter said at the end that the government don't want people to discuss this and its true, they seem to want to big up the living wage coming in and the rise in the tax thresholds, when in fact this wont go anywhere near making up the shortfall most people are facing..

I remember on Mn when higher earners lost child benefit, there was an absolute outcry, but the tax credits cuts are barely mentioned, there was one poster called ihategeorgeosbourne who was livid and was on every thread discussing this, her husband earned £60k a year IIRC and she was furious they were losing child benefit...well dh and I earn £25k a year between us and we are losing £2600 a year, a little over 10% of our income , much much more than a family with an income of £60k losing child benefit....but its being brushed under the carpet by the government who insist they are helping working people..

'there are too many people in the Labour Party who confuse righteous indignation amongst people who agree with each other with being able to win an election'

You are right. I watched the Labour Party Conference and it was frankly abysmal. It doesn't represent the vast majority of people. It was a factional group of apparatchiks concerned with issues that appeal only to minority interests. It is not good enough, it doesn't reach out to the majority of people. The Labour candidates didn't represent our interests. They should be able to thrash these Etonian toffs - Dave and his anointed pal, George - and the Piers Gaveston by showing us all that Labour represents us and our interests against the toffs. But they are incapable of reaching out to us because their message is all wrong. They should speak only about jobs, wages, education, health, economy, nationalisation etc and leave all the marginal issues to fix when they get in. But by focusing on the marginal issues, they look like they don't care about our interests and become irrelevant to us. Corbyn focuses on the marginal stuff, but if bold enough he could show us why he could do good for us by drastically changing the entire debate, but whether he is really capable of making that leap, I don't know.

give him time claig, hopefully he's just warming up

Yes, I saw a good interview of Guardian associate editor, Seumas Milne, on Russia Today today and he made some good points which will give heart to the Corbynistas. He said that the current Shadow Cabinet which contains all the splitters is probably just a temporary quick unity move but that there are lots of real left wingers who support Corbyn who could replace them in the future. He said that the Tory boundary changes will force reselection of many Labour MPs and that may remove some of teh splitters and put real left wingers in. He said that when teh Tory tax credit cuts start to bite, it will hit a lot of people, including Tory voters and that will cause a backlash and that any economic downturn that may occur would also aid Corbyn. So Corbyn may be biding his time and the group behind him may only be playing nice with the splitters now but may ditch them later.

When you look at the Tory who was egged in Manchester speaking about Thatcher and "socialist nutters", it is obvious that he doesn't represent the majority of people, but unless Labour can start appealing to the majority by keeping their message simple and aimed at the majority's concerns of employment, wages, housing, health and education, then they won't win us over.

but that there are lots of real left wingers who support Corbyn who could replace them in the future

If the Labour Party wants to become an irrelevant party of protest, reduced to 30 seats in London, 100 seats in northern urban areas and little else, that's a pretty good way to do it. In fact, such a party would struggle to even hold those seats, because immigration would see it attacked by UKIP more successfully than at the moment, and even if UKIP couldn't win seats, there are a lot of constituencies where erosion to the Labour vote to UKIP puts other parties (usually Tories) in.

It would be a matter of replacing sitting centrist Labour MPs with hard-left losing candidates.

It would be interesting to see the Labour Party annihilated by this strategy, in the hope that something electable might arise from the wreckage. But I want to see a progressive, redistributive government in office in my lifetime, and I don't think the gedankenexperiment needs to be more than gedanken to know what would happen.

In 2020, the youngest person who could have voted in 1945 will be 96. That is the last time the UK electorate returned an openly socialist Labour Party with a working majority, and even that government was out of office in six years.

Ricardian, UKIP will take lots of working class voters away from Labour if Labour remain an Oxbridge metropolitan elite nonentity party of Tory-lites. Labour have to offer something to working class an middle class voters that makes their immigration worries irrelevant. To do that it is going to have to be stunningly good i.e. much cheaper housing, better education, no tuition fees, better job security, higher wages, more jobs, better healthcare, cheaper rail fares and more money in their pockets. Only Corbyn has the buts to offer some of that and if he did, people would forget about immigration because what was offered by Corbyn would be more important.

More Tory-lite policies will never enthuse voters to vote Labour when common sense UKIP are now in the working class space.

With the exception of rail fares (long-distance commuting is a middle-class obsession; working-class commuting is usually within PTAs who regulate the fares) and tuition fees (nothing like the issue you might think, even amongst students) I don't disagree that those issues are important.

But I don't believe Corbyn can offer that without losing more votes on "economic competence" than he could possibly pick up. Offering individual policies without an overall narrative is retail politics, and it was shown to fail in 2010 and 2015. It was how Brown and Miliband lost elections: you identify a group, convince yourself that their main concern is X, and offer a policy to address X. Even assuming that X is so important to that group that they will vote on X and X alone (which I don't think is true) you end up with a manifesto full of lots of Xes, the overall effect of which is to alienate people who think they'll lose more money funding other people's Xes than they'll gain from the one or two Xes they care about.

If Corbyn was to stun the Tories by saying that elderly people will get free care and will no longer be forced to sell their homes to pay for it, he would turn around the situation where most pensioners vote Tory overnight for the elderly and their children. There are lots of things Corbyn might have the courage to do because he is not Establishment and doesn't have to do what they tell him.

If Corbyn was to stun the Tories by saying that elderly people will get free care and will no longer be forced to sell their homes to pay for it, he would turn around the situation where most pensioners vote Tory overnight for the elderly and their children.

So that's a policy which (a) isn't affordable and doesn't even sound affordable, so no-one (including the elderly) would actually believe it (b) ensures that those whose parents are rich remain rich (c) makes no sense without substantial cuts, or at least no increases, to inheritance tax and (d) would piss off, mightily, most of the hard left.

Other than that, it's a winning strategy.

'long-distance commuting is a middle-class obsession'

Labour have to start winning back aspirant middle classes by making them better off.

'tuition fees (nothing like the issue you might think, even amongst students)'

This affects parents who often gave to help support their children and are worried about them starting their lives with huge debts around their necks which can affect them buying houses etc. It is about standard of living and removing burdens on people.

'But I don't believe Corbyn can offer that without losing more votes on "economic competence" than he could possibly pick up.'

He could say we are building a million homes (trump the Tories by a huge number) and saying that unemployed people will be trained to do it and that it would be paid for by quintupling tax inspectors dealing with corporate tax evasion and by increasing corporation tax by a few percent and by taxing anyone earning over £100.000 by an extra 10%. Ordinary people don't care if the rich arehit as long as they aren't hit and they can see their lives getting better.

'Offering individual policies without an overall narrative is retail politics'

I agree, no one believed the Tory-lites because they were all spin and Establishment. The narrative should be we are going to make your lives better and the rich are going to pay for it - put Dave and George and the Piers Gaveston in the frame, say that they are profitting while you are paying, that the bankers got off lightly, and you were made to pay and now we are going to turn things around. Show us that you are on our side and that we will benefit while the rich and corporates pay. And make it believable with real left wingers not Establishment Oxbridge cronies who attend Bilderberg meetings and suck up to the elite.

'So that's a policy which (a) isn't affordable and doesn't even sound affordable, so no-one (including the elderly) would actually believe it'

That's probably what the Tories said when the NHS was first suggested. Of course it is affordable and it is a vote winner and yes middle class people will benefit and vote Labour for a change because they will think there is something in it for them as well as all the loony left minor issues they always bang on about.

'makes no sense without substantial cuts'

No more cuts, no more austerity. Higher taxes for the rich and the corporates and the BBC stars who invested in tax minimising schemes. If they had real courage and were not politically correct, then obviously they could slash government grants to charidees with self-referring "clients" etc, but we know they can't do that because they are politically correct. The third sector (charidees etc) is now worth about £65 billion pounds. We all know about the high wages of the Labour luvvies who are in some of those and the waste and unaccounatability. Huge savings could be made there.

'would piss off, mightily, most of the hard left.
The hard left are the minority and Labour Party Conference doesn't appeal to the majority because too many speakers only talk about monority issues that appeal to the hard left and are not seen as overly important to the majority. Offer real left wing policies different to anything the Establishment Tory-lites would be allowed to even consider but make sure they appeal to the majority.

Give the public a choice - Piers Gaveston versus making life better for the majority. Show the Tories up for what they really are and who they really support. Show the people that Labour is on their side - the majority of the people, not the minority. Speak about what the majority are concerned about.

The public allacross the world are in revolt and dissatisfied with their political class. Look at Donald Trump in the States and the rise of UKIP here. Those people are just waiting to be snapped up by someone who can convince them that they will make their lives better. They have no more loyalty or respect for the elites and are all now swing voters waiting for someone to articulate how their lives can be improved.

Politicians/parties that rise on the back of promoting false optimism, usually concentrating on a handful of issues/fears saying that they are 'new' or 'different' are no better than oldey world false gods - _as the problems of the state/society/infrastructure will be EXACTLY the same the day after they enter power than the day before. FACT.

Sure a populist party could say build honking great walls to keep people out, put people in camps, or deport them - but all the problems of every day life will always get worse as such policies take up too much time and effort of politicians trying to satisfy the baying crowds fears of insecurities - usually based on any immigration.

Trump the Republican would lead a party with a core pro business, low taxes, small state pedigree, so everyday life may not change too much.

Farage the UKipper would lead a party who in 25-years have not established core policies/values away from the EU, immigration and the Burka, so the party remains a mongrel on all other issues, trying to pitch their badly thought out populist policies to whatever political colour's voters they are targeting in any particular election.

While the majority of the public can still work out that on the problems on jobs, homes, education, the nhs etc etc etc - a political leader/party don't really know whether to have a pooh or a haircut - common sense will prevail. IMO