« Obama will meet Cameron on margins of G20 | Main | Stuart Wheeler defects to UKIP supports UKIP with £100,000 donation but "likely" to support Tories at next General Election »


More proof that Labour will lose rather than the Tories will win - same sh@t different colour box

It's amazing how close these figures are to the outcome of the 1997 in reverse. Interesting that they give us a majority of 78 whereas in 1997 Labour achieved a majority of 178!

Excellent poll, the inheritance tax decision makes sense, fiscal conservatives would want a balanced budget first, tax cuts later.

As for labour losing, the argument holds no water, these kind of poll figures were occuring BEFORE the recession when the issues were completely different. Such arguments could only really be made if we benefited from the recession or labours economic troubles, it hasn't. People seem willing to vote for us in good and bad economic times.

78 would be a good majority but the main thing is that Labour is punished by the LibDems replacing them as H M Loyal Opposition. Labour must be destroyed for the evil it has unleashed these past 12 years.

The Conservatives must however be open with the public. Chris Grayling was disingenuous on today's Any Questions when supporting Kitty Usher and Menzies Campbell in wanting to tamper with one of the cornerstones of the Post Civil war Settlement - he did not tell the audience he was a Catholic in favour of a measure to benefit Catholics - one with constitutional implications (it is the basis of the 1707 Act of Union with Scotland).....that was very disappointing and makes Chris Grayling suspect in a way David Davis was not

Good news, ICM is one of the more reliable polls.

Richard, indeed. The only one with which pre-1997 comparisons are in any way useful. The rest of them vastly over-stated Labour's support.

TomTom. The Act of Settlement should be changed. It is nothing more than discrimination against Catholics and treats much of our population as second class citizens. The sooner it goes the better!!By the way I am not a Catholic.I just believe in fairness and justice.

Hearing a lot about fairness and justice from the left are we not. You should be out in Hyde Park Jack with all the other protesters with their Nokia phones and Apple computers denouncing capitalism. The "rich" are getting a decent bashing as well it's mazing how it's assumed they come out of the womb with a hedge fund. I thought fairness was being able to work hard and being rich as a result fo that is no issue to me.

The poll lead is good especially as it probably won't absorb Brown's dreadfull last two days. The lead does need to be between 10-13% consistently though. As we have seen even a poll lead of 7-8% is straying closley towards hung parliament territory.

Excellent! Made my day! Bet the BBC don't report it!

Great news. But I'm not sure I agree that we want the Libdems to replace Labour in opposition.

I hate what Labour have become, but beneath all that there are still some principled intelligent folk who I just happen to disagree with.

On the LibDem bench I see very little to like.

Interesting to see how the public is split on IHT. I wouldn't let the electorate think we'll back it come-what-may, but I think "sometime before 2014 providing its affordable" sounds fair.

TomTom. The Act of Settlement should be changed. It is nothing more than discrimination against Catholics

* The monarch "shall join in communion with the Church of England." This was another provision to avoid a Roman Catholic monarch. Along with James II's perceived despotism, his religion was the main cause of the Glorious Revolution of 1688, and the previous linked religious and succession problems solved by the joint monarchy of William and Mary.
* If a person not native to England comes to the throne, England will not wage war for "any dominions or territories which do not belong to the Crown of England, without the consent of Parliament." This was farsighted, because when the House of Hanover ascended the British throne they would retain the territories that became the Kingdom of Hanover (situated in modern-day Germany's Lower Saxony). This provision has been dormant since Queen Victoria ascended the throne, because she did not inherit Hanover under the Salic Laws of the German states of the day, but in principle it could again become relevant in the future.
* No monarch may leave "the dominions of England, Scotland, or Ireland," without the consent of Parliament.[3] This provision was repealed in 1716, at the request of George I, who was also the Elector of Hanover and Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg of the Holy Roman Empire, and so frequently needed and wanted to stay in Hanover.[4]
* All government matters within the jurisdiction of the Privy Council were to be transacted there, and all council resolutions were to be signed by those who advised and consented to them. This was because parliament wanted to know who was deciding policies, as sometimes councillors' signatures normally attached to resolutions were absent. This provision was repealed early in Queen Anne's reign, as many councillors ceased to offer advice and some stopped attending meetings altogether.[4]
* No foreigner, even if naturalized (unless they were born of English parents), shall be allowed to be a Privy Councillor or a member of either House of Parliament, or hold "any office or place of trust, either civil or military, or to have any grant of lands, tenements or hereditaments from the Crown, to himself or to any other or others in trust for him." As a result of subsequent nationality laws, this provision does not apply to naturalized citizens in any country.
* No person who has an office under the monarch, or receives a pension from the Crown, can be a Member of Parliament (MP). This provision was inserted to avoid unwelcome royal influence over the House of Commons. It remains in force, but with several exceptions. As a side effect, this provision means that MPs seeking to resign from parliament could get around the age-old prohibition on resignation by obtaining a low-salary sinecure in the pay of the Crown; while several offices have been used for this purpose, two are currently in use. Appointments generally alternate between the Stewardships of the Chiltern Hundreds and the Manor of Northstead.[5]
* Judges' commissions are valid quamdiu se bene gesserint (during good behaviour), and if they do not behave themselves they can be removed only by both Houses of Parliament, or the one House of Parliament, depending on the legislature's structure. This provision was the result of various monarchs' influencing judges' rulings, and it assured nearly full judicial independence.
* No pardon by the monarch can save someone from being impeached by the House of Commons.

So Jack The Act of Security 1704 in Scotland had to be overridden by The Act of Union 1707.

If you tamper too much with the 1701 Act of Settlement Parliament itself will unravel and civil war would become more relevant.

Certainly with the Act of Settlement there is no reason to accept Parliament as legitimate nor to accept The Crown as the fount of legitimacy for HMRC or the Courts system. And the United Kingdom is moot with Scotland being de facto independent.

In one way it would allow us to overturn the whole constitutional settlement and move towards a new political structure. I oppose changing the Act but if it is changed Parliament itself becomes illegitimate as dores the Court system and we can move towards a Cromwellian Republic

These Figures are nothing to get excited about. Indeed they have been consistent for a while now.Labour must be secretly rather content. I would have hoped to see our lead increasing rather than being static, the problem as I see it is this:

Labour with the help of their buddy in the USA (spending crazed pinko president) manage to prop the whole rotten mess up, as a result of the spending they are doing. We then have something of a false dawn where the economy recovers long enough for Brown to steal the election. Its looking more possible with each result that has us only marginally ahead. The Head of the Bank of England will be a voice for reason, but Brown and the socialists will use the PRESIDENT as a trump card. Be Warned my Brothers this election is far from won.
Remember how Brown encourages risk taking, by trying to underwrite risk. These are truely dangerous times with an already weak economy. Putting off the day of judgement is understandable, but is not the right thing to do. So lets try to increse that lead by listning to the people and realising that we need to sell the "changes ". There is a lot to be said for a returned Sunday observance as an example of cutbacks of days worked.

Good News, we need a general election

Freddy (1720). Like you, I'd be rather surprised if the BBC reported it! (Compare and contrast with their up front reporting of Ken Clarke's comments last week on our IHT proposals which was first news item on bulletins alleging "confusion" "disarray" etc on our IHT policy.)

but the main thing is that Labour is punished by the LibDems replacing them as H M Loyal Opposition.
The Liberal Democrats just don't have the support to achieve such a thing, the Alliance had fewer seats, but were closer in 1983 and 1987 to a tipping point vote where a national vote of over 30% could have yielded major gains in seats. The Liberal Democrats are no closer to any possible breakthrough than the Liberals were in the mid\late 1970s.

They are unlikely even to win as many seats as they did in 2005, and could end up right back where they were in 1992.

Who on earth makes up the 31% who still vote Labour? Are they Rip van Winkles who were lulled to sleep for 12 years by that well known lullaby "Things Can Only Get Better"?
It's worrying that apparently a large section of the voting population seems unable to connect the moral and financial bankruptcy of this country to the party that has been in power for over a decade.

"Chris Grayling was disingenuous on today's Any Questions ... he did not tell the audience he was a Catholic in favour of a measure to benefit Catholics "

What's disingenuous? He was sticking to the party line as previously given by David Cameron, Nick Herbert and Dominic Grieve.

The split on IHT probably indicates that it is not a high priority. The economy is up a creek without a paddle.

There are important principles about how much of an estate might be appropriated by the state, but at present most of the population have bigger things to worry about than who gets what is left of their assets after they die.

Depressing that Labour is only down 5% on its percentage at the last election.

No Ann Allan...They are people who remember what the last Conservative Government was like and they will never forget.

Labour's percentage at the last election was dismal, it was masked only by the fact the Conservatives did worse and by a comfortable seat majority. The lead is the important thang.

So, Joshuwahwah, they are like the Bourbons kings; remember everything and learn nothing. And what happened to them?

"Who on earth makes up the 31% who still vote Labour?"

I have answered this before. The Main parties have a hard core of support.

There are various client groups who will always vote Labour and they pander to them to keep their votes.

Don't bother with them, concentrate on the Floating Voters instead.

Roll on the end of this disgraceful and destructive Government.

The Conservative Party has been accused of 'sleepwalking into government', and if this is indeed the case the question is who will get the rudest of awakenings when (as seems most likely) it is is elected in 2010?
Like it or not the New Labour project made the party popular (and electable) to a portion of the electorate that would never have considered voting for 'old' Labour. Gordon Brown lacks most of the things that make a leader popular and if (as seems likely) he loses the next election and resigns as leader there is no reason why Labour in opposition will not regain at least some of their popular support.
This will make for 'interesting times' if the Conservative government is caught like a rabbit in car headlights with few policies and no clear idea of how to govern the country.
Jeering from the sidelines and adopting a populist stance only works when in opposition. If you need proof consider Eric Pickles' dismal performance on the last edition of Question Time when required to defend his position on MPs expenses.

Ken's right it is not a priority IMHO.
Of course we would like to cut tax's but straight after the election of priority must be making some sense of the mess labour is going to leave behind. Will not certainly have to maintain tax's at Labour rates, until after we have found the savings.
I am confidant that saveings can be made quite quickly, but they must come before further tax's.

Messy post excuse me.

If the Conservatives were to say they are raising the tax allowance to £10,000 (with no raising of the higher band) then they would garner a lot of support as well as getting people spending again.

Still a good poll though

The lead seems to have plateaued out at around the 12% level. Not encouraging given the economic climate. Cameron is not whipping up the rage against Labour failure that one would expect.

There seems to be less confidence elsewhere that 12% is enough to produce a good working majority given the constituency boundaries under which the next election will be run and that a hung parlaiment or single figure majority would be more likely.

"The lead seems to have plateaued out at around the 12% level. Not encouraging given the economic climate. Cameron is not whipping up the rage against Labour failure that one would expect."

Exactly my concern. If Labour pull off a false dawn recovery (which is possible) then we will be in trouble. On the plus side I heard D.C. talked of in glowing terms on Fox today. So he is getting through to Conservatives in the rest of the world at last.

As a Catholic I have never felt discriminated against by the act of union.
I suspect the majority of Catholics are completely disinterested The RC church has much more important things to deal with without hoping for a contitutional crisis which is maybe why Brown and his "advisors" would like destabilsation which seems the name of the game , which is strange as it seeems the labour party "dont do God" or those that have Browns ear!
I am proud to be a subject of The Queen and not as the trendy left would have me a"Citizen" Leave that title to the french!
I served the Crown not some tacky has been such as Brown Geoff SunBear

Hey Tom Tom let me know what benefits
Dont want to play polo etc
Geoff Sunbear

"As a Catholic I have never felt discriminated against by the act of union"

I believe that Browns plans are an attack on the CofE rather than an attempt to undo historic wrongs. I am against any changes to our Monarchy that are not suggested first by the Queen. Brown should butt out and except that he is a subject.

Is Brown's attempt to tinker with the Act of Settlement a smokescreen to keep the public away from the greater problems facing the country? I doubt that thoughts about this Act are in my top 100 priorities for government. If Brown did think this would turn attention from the economy and sleaze he's failed, thanks to Mr Smith.

This is the question they asked:

"You may have seen or heard that there has recently been a proposal that the thresh-hold for paying inheritance tax should be raised to £1 million from its
current level of increased current level of £300,000 - which could mean that many more households will not have to pay the current 40 per cent inheritance tax levy."

About as loaded as you can get. What about:

"You may have seen or heard that there has recently been a proposal that the thresh-hold for paying inheritance tax should be raised to £1 million from its
current level of increased current level of £600,000 for married couples - which would mean that the most wealthy 5.4% of estates will not have to pay the current 40 per cent inheritance tax levy. Do you think this should be a priority over other tax cuts?"

Resident Leftie

"Do you think this (IHT) should be a priority over other tax cuts?"

I hope you have been asking your New Labour friends the same questions over the cut in VAT!

The VAT cut is part of Gordon's idea to cure the debt problem by encouraging people to spend more (the other part is 0.5% interest rates - don't save just spend). Not flash, just bonkers - just Gordon!

The VAT cut is widely accepted to have made NO difference to the public's spending decisions but has punched yet another whole in the nation's finances.

So, hard working people pay income tax on their earnings (and NI), VAT on what they spend plus the additional plethora of 'stealth taxes' from Mr Brown. Then when they 'check out' their life savings are TAXED YET AGAIN with IHT. It is simply immoral.

Do you think that the Government makes prudent decisions on how to spend all this tax payers money? And frittering away someone's life savings is criminal.

For example, The Iraq War, The Dome, Gold sold at 20 year low, overpayment of Tax Credit (unrecoverable), IT systems that don't work, over 100 extra Quango's since 1997.
And that's before we get to Gordon's own FSA 'asleep on the job' and Gordon's removal of house prices from the inflation figures which led to the biggest Bubble and now biggest Bust of all time - complete with Bank Bail Out's and Quantitative Easing.
More debt than after WWII. Great money management!

So to answer your question. As much as is possible, leave tax payers money where it belongs - with the tax payer. And yes all tax cuts should be a priority and IHT, the tax on life savings, especially so.

The comments to this entry are closed.



ConHome on Twitter

    follow me on Twitter

    Conservative blogs

    Today's public spending saving

    New on other blogs

    • Receive our daily email
      Enter your details below:

    • Tracker 2
    • Extreme Tracker