UKC

I see that after her little set to with Ed Milliband Myleene Klass is now facing an online petition calling on Littlewoods to drop her from their ads. Is this consumer power in action or a sinister attempt to stifle debate by intimidating people whose views offend any passing keyboard warrior with time on their hands? The petition says her comments were out of keeping with the financial status of Littlewood's customers but did anyone seriously believe she bought her frocks on the never never from a catalogue? You'll be telling me next that Peter Andre really shops at Iceland. And goes there by bus.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:

It has less signatures than this http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/bring-ben-jerrys-bob-marley-flavor-to-am... so I wouldn't get too worked up

In reply to Wiley Coyote:

Hysterical. Just read the Daily Mails take on the Mylene Klass storm in teacup ""The average cost of a detached house in the not very glamorous borough of Wandsworth in South London is around £2 million, and it is similar in neighbouring Clapham, hardly the acme of fashion, or the playground of the very wealthy"
err...does the Daily Mail realise that owning a detached house in clapham or wandsworth is not exactly on the cards for the vast majority of Londoners? Makes Marie Antoinette look socially aware.

In reply to pebbles:

I don't really care what she said about £2m garages it's the idea that as soon as someone who's not a fulltime politico sticks their head above the parapet someone pops up to try to make their life difficult. It used to be that in a situation like this someone would say 'You're wrong and this is why you're wrong'. Now the response seems to be 'Speak up and you'll be sorry' be it some twitter troll making threats to Jess Ennis or this petition trying to get her fired from what is presumably a lucrative bit of work. Just does not seem much of a way to encourage people to take part in the broader political discourse.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:
''Speak up and you'll be sorry'

Or it may be that some people think that these celebs should be a little more circumspect about matters about which they have given oo, I don't know, 2 or maybe even 3 minutes thought. After all if they make their living by influencing people - and not necessarily the most independent minded or well informed people either - maybe they should exercise that power with a bit of caution and humility?

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

She was guilty only of hyperbole. Yes you can get more than a garage but that wasn't her point. She had two good ones, one was that Labour are trying to present a rob the rich to pay they poor image without correctly identifying the rich. Secondly they are justifying it as paying for the NHS without providing evidence that it is enough money or even the right way to fix the NHS.

It's incredible to believe that the latest socialist party cannot present a credible socialist solution. He's making Farage look clued-up!

In reply to Philip:


There aren't any socialist parties.

He's making Farage look clued-up!

No he isn't. For anyone with a brain Farage still sounds like a tw@t

In reply to aln:

I'm sorry, which Farage? The one who thinks we need to move to an insurance based system or the one that says we don't?

Trouble with Farage is that he DOESN'T sound like a tw@t, he will tell whatever lies he needs to avoid that.

Which isn't to say that Miliband wasn't inept at dealing with a very predictable ambush.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:
She should be made to shower in fairy liquid in my two up two down!

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


Yes he does.

sound like a tw@t, he will tell whatever lies he needs to avoid that.

Isn't that just what politicians do?

In reply to aln:

Even poor Miliband has more class & talent than she has. I remember a very poor attempt at her miming playing( a specially imported) grand piano at Mambo a few years ago

In reply to Lesdavmor:

Why was she "miming" paying it?

In reply to Skol:


Personal fantasy?

In reply to Philip:

It wasn't meant to fix the NHS or anything else, it was a combination of a populist soundbite and "punishing wicked people". It would probably bring in very little more than it would cost to collect, would be subject to endless legal challenge (which the state, i.e. taxpayers), would probably lose.


At 1% if NHS budget even by Labour's wildly optimistic estimates, it can't fix anything. Which will probably not stop the Eds from spending it 20 times over, which they have already done with "tax on bankers bonuses", nor will it stop them lowering and lowering the threshhold, or letting it autolower by fiscal drag. The ludicrous assumption seems to be that changes to tax law do not change behaviour, we all know they change it massively. Even if Balls/Brown did not double and more than double the length of the tax code at their last go, so that we now have one of the most complex and hence unworkable tax codes in the world, Ed is proposing ever more taxes and tinkering, just to seize a headline for a moment. They will also need many more taxes, on many more people than just "the rich" to satisfy their endless hunger for funds, indeed, it can never be satisfied since it is a hunger that grows by what it feeds on.


Surely everyone knew he wasn't Prime Minister material, that is no surprise. But he does not even seem to be sixth form debating society calibre, which is somewhat more revealing. The thought of him dealing on our behalf with really tough customers like Putin, the premier of China or Angela Merkl would be hilarious if it wasn't so terrifying. Of course he could deal with his buddy Hollande in France, as Britain would rapidly be as deep in the Brown stuff as France now is, while Miliband didn't even need to take office to get as unpopular as Hollande is now.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I dont know why but the soundtrack was not in synch with the fingering, by a lot
In contrast, Bond were also miming at the same event but were extremely amusing
And the harpist Julia Thornton was playing divinely, you could have heard the proverbial pin drop. FYI

In reply to Lesdavmor:
Odd to judge the qualities of a pianist by how well they mime.

In reply to ThunderCat:


Of course. And that of my neighbours

In reply to Lesdavmor:

¿

Mate, I wouldn't be giving a monkeys if a wiz fingering Myleene Klass

In reply to Philip:

Are people with 2 million in assets not rich?

In reply to FreshSlate:

Sure they are, but it's an odd way of identifying them. Some people with a £2m house might have fabulous incomes, and laugh in the face of a £20k per year tax (assuming we're still on the 1% proposal here), there's also the people who don't. One easy-to-relate-to example would be a retired person/couple living in a central London townhouse. Sure, they're asset-rich, but don't have the cash from their pension to pay these fairly large taxes and would be forced to move.

Which is also fine, if that's what you want, but you need to justify why you want to force people to move out of expensive houses. Is it the politics of envy, because you can't have what they have (*)? Is it a belief that this will somehow lower house prices for the masses? What is the reason?

(*) I guess it can't be envy given Ed's £2m house

In reply to Skol:


*whimper*

Got to admit I find I could forgive her all sorts of political or social gaffes!

In reply to climbwhenready:

Taking money out of the housing market reduces the money available for purchases which should reduce prices. It also reduces the investment rate of return so that's second mechanism that might reduce prices.

In reply to climbwhenready:


That's easy, it's so someone can move into the property who can afford these taxes....... sheesh, I don't even agree with it.

In reply to Mike Stretford:


So the policy is "Big houses for rich bankers only" ? I guess the more I think about this, the more it's going to unravel

In reply to elsewhere:


Goodbye tax take.

(I'm not sure people worry about investments at this end of the market, I don't think that many £2m+ houses are buy-to-let.)

In reply to climbwhenready:
If we take



Old people you could defer the payment till they're dead then it comes out of your estate. I don't actually agree with the policy for other reasons but you're not doing a good job of knocking it. This talk of a 'need to justify your reasons' is plucked out of thin air.

In reply to Mike Stretford:

It's only a rewording of one of the primary criticisms in the MSM, which Labour have yet to address.

In reply to FreshSlate:


Some are

On the other hand some bought the house for £25,000 over 20 years ago and have just seen the price of the house they love living in, sky rocket through no fault or influence of their own. Chances are their wages havn't gone up by the same amount the price of their house has. Its's a bit harsh to tax those guys for just being lucky enough to buy at the right time.

Anyway, leave Myleene alone and Ed should have known and performed better than to be out maneuvered by a TV celeb, even if she is an intelligent one.

In reply to cap'nChino:
It's a bit harsh on the person who did something else with their £25,000 over 20 years ago and might have to pay capital gains tax on whatever they bought, particularly as their gain might be based on merit (eg a wise investor) rather than what you describe as "just being lucky".

In reply to elsewhere:

Maybe Bill gates should give me half his money, as when he invested in microsoft and lucked in, I invested in a bet at the bookies and lost the lot?

In reply to elsewhere:


Yup.

But your wise investor made a conscious investment. My hapless home owners just wanted to live near their parents.

I don't know what the answer is. As always, there is merit in both sides of the argument.

In reply to cap'nChino:


Hapless home owner would never realise that asset unless they sold... which is my problem with this newly proposed tax. CGT should be tweaked to tax them at that point (where you move but make a big profit). In the event of them staying till they die, then inheritance tax will get it.

In reply to balmybaldwin:
He's giving it to worthier causes

In reply to cap'nChino:

True enough.

In reply to FreshSlate:


Depends if those assets are realisable.

In reply to stroppygob:

Are they not realisable? If I was on a low income sat on 2 million worth of house, you'd bet I'd downsize.

In reply to FreshSlate:

That is you. Not everybody is in your circumstance.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:




He may sound like a tw@t, but as things stand it looks like he is Prime minister in waiting.

In reply to stroppygob:


Yeah, I'm not rich.

In reply to FreshSlate:

Which negates your original point.

In reply to Lesdavmor:


She's actually a trained and talented pianist

In reply to Pedro50:

And got better A-level grades than Millipede! But he does play a bit of violin

In reply to Wiley Coyote:

I still would though. Well fit.

In reply to knighty:


Who? Milliband? Nah I think he would get a wheeze on with any kind of exertion

In reply to Philip:


She was guilty of sounding like a spoilt cow. If you're trying to make a point about a policy on TV, it's best not to reveal that you have absolutely no idea how different "£2m house" sounds to you compared to the vast majority of the country.


These are indeed valid points. There's a bit more to the policy than just "rob the rich to pay the poor" - more that there is a lot of wealth out there that isn't getting taxed because people are clever with it. This policy may well be utterly inadequate (I can't say), but when the government is busy cutting benefits from the disabled while not bothering to maximise tax take from those who don't pay through income tax or other means, there's a very valid issue to addressed by the opposition.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


IYHO I take it, some of us may have different perspectives


Good point, it's a shame that Miliband wasn't able to articulate it so well, and, after all, isn't that is what is being criticised?

In reply to Simon4:

Leaving this ideological frothing aside, there either is or isn't a looming funding gap for the NHS. Are you prepared to say whether there is or isn't?

If there is, what should be done? Should fewer, poorer services be provided publicly? Should more be spent? Or will we be able to provide the same level of care or better by magic-ing money out of sacking some management and clerical staff and changing the brand of sanitising hand gel?

You may like to talk about the ideology of raising or cutting taxes, but in the mean time, what is your view on funding the NHS? Seems to me that only scrapping the NHS is consistent with your ideological standpoint, without some explanation of how you keep it going without the evil of "spending other people's money".

In reply to Mike Stretford:

>. In the event of them staying till they die, then inheritance tax will get it.

Unless your name's Benn, of course.