A house along Kensington Palace Gardens, which has been named as Britain's most expensive street. Photograph: Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Why Labour's London mayoral hopefuls might regret their opposition to a mansion tax

By resisting a progressive measure backed by most Londoners, they have given Sadiq Khan the chance to position himself as the radical candidate. 

Of London's likely London mayoral candidates, there are now four who oppose the party's policy of a mansion tax. David Lammy (the only officially declared candidate bar transport expert Christian Wolmar) and Tessa Jowell have rejected the measure, which would involve a charge of 1 per cent on property values above £2m, as "a tax on London". Margaret Hodge has declared: "The problem identified is the right one, I just think the solution is too crude to work properly." Even Diane Abbott, a stalwart of the socialist Campaign Group, has warned: "The turbo-charged nature of the London property market means that anyone who bought a family house in a previously unfashionable part of London decades ago could easily now be living in a house worth over £1m. And, although the mansion tax will not affect properties at that level, I suspect that those voters will be jumpy." (Andrew Adonis, who was considering standing, but is now expected to support Jowell, has also criticised the policy). 

Only Sadiq Khan, the shadow London minister and shadow justice secretary, has remained loyal to the party line. Khan, a leading figure on the left of the party and a close ally of Ed Miliband (he ran his leadership campaign), regards the tax as vital to reducing inequality in the capital. 

What explains the hostility of his rivals to a progressive and popular policy? (72 per cent of the public and 59 per cent of Londoners support it.) The primary concern expressed is that it will penalise those who are asset rich but cash poor: people on modest incomes who could struggle to afford the £5,000 bill that a £2.5m property would incur. But this issue has already been addressed by Ed Balls, who announced in June that there would be "protections in place" for this group. This would take the form of a relief scheme, or allowing low-earners to defer payment until the property is sold. The shadow chancellor also responded to the concern expressed by Abbott by pledging that the threshold for the tax would be raised annually in line with average increases in house prices, rather than general inflation. This, he said, would "ensure that more modest properties are not brought into the scope of the tax". 

But rather than policy, it is politics that may explain the mayoral hopefuls' stance. All are keen to avoid being seen as "party hacks", and to be seen to defend Londoners (90 per cent of properties worth more than £2m lie in the capital), even if against their own party, following the example set by Ken Livingstone and Boris Johnson. By opposing a mansion tax they also helpfully align themselves with the position of the Evening Standard, which has long criticised the measure as "a tax on London". 

Yet, for similarly political reasons, they could yet regret their stance. London is one of the most unequal cities in the developed world; it is home to more billionaires than any other, but one in three Londoners live in poverty, two-thirds of them in work. A recent poll found that 80 per cent of residents believe the income gap is too high and that 87 per cent believe rising inequality is unfair. Contrary to claims that "ordinary" voters would be hit, it's estimated that only 0.4 per cent of Londoners would be affected - 80 per cent of them within the wealthy boroughs of Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea. Last year, only two properties in Jowell's borough of Southwark, one property in Lammy's borough of Haringey, and no properties in Hodge's borough of Barking and Dagenham were sold for more than £2m. 

By nonetheless opposing the policy, they have provided Khan with a potent dividing line for the Labour selection contest. Bill de Blasio won election as New York mayor last year (and defeated his centrist rivals) by campaigning on the theme of of "a tale of two cities" and vowing to radically reduce inequality. In resisting the redistributive mansion tax, Labour's London mayoral hopefuls have given Khan the chance to similarly claim this territory for himself. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Labour's purge: how it works, and what it means

The total number of people removed will be small - but the rancour will linger. 

Labour has just kicked off its first big wave of expulsions, purging many voters from the party’s leadership rolls. Twitter is ablaze with activists who believe they have been kicked out because they are supporters of Jeremy Corbyn. There are, I'm told, more expulsions to come - what's going on?  Is Labour purging its rolls of Corbyn supporters?

The short answer is “No”.

If that opener feels familiar, it should: I wrote it last year, when the last set of purges kicked off, and may end up using it again next year. Labour has stringent rules about expressing support for other candidates and membership of other parties, which account for the bulk of the expulsions. It also has a code of conduct on abusive language which is also thinning the rolls, with supporters of both candidates being kicked off. 

Although the party is in significantly better financial shape than last year, it still is running a skeleton staff and is recovering from an expensive contest (in this case, to keep Britain in the European Union). The compliance unit itself remains small, so once again people from across the party staff have been dragooned in.

The process this year is pretty much the same: Labour party headquarters doesn’t have any bespoke software to match its voters against a long list of candidates in local elections, compiled last year and added to the list of candidates that stood against Labour in the 2016 local and devolved elections, plus a large backlog of complaints from activists.

It’s that backlog that is behind many of the highest-profile and most controversial examples. Last year, in one complaint that was not upheld, a local member was reported to the Compliance Unit for their failure to attend their local party’s annual barbecue. The mood in Labour, in the country and at Westminster, is significantly more bitter this summer than last and the complaints more personal. Ronnie Draper, the general secretary of the Bfawu, the bakers’ union, one of Corbyn’s biggest supporters in the trade union movement, has been expelled, reported for tweets which included the use of the word “traitors” to refer to Labour opponents of Corbyn.  Jon Will Chambers, former bag carrier to Stella Creasy, and a vocal Corbyn critic on Twitter, has been kicked out for using a “Theresa May” twibbon to indicate his preference for May over Andrea Leadsom, in contravention of the party’s rules.

Both activities breach the letter of the party’s rules although you can (and people will) make good arguments against empowering other people to comb through the social media profiles of their opponents for reasons to dob them in.  (In both cases, I wouldn’t be shocked if both complaints were struck down on appeal)

I would be frankly astonished if Corbyn’s margin of victory – or defeat, as unlikely as that remains in my view – isn’t significantly bigger than the number of people who are barred from voting, which will include supporters of both candidates, as well as a number of duplicates (some people who paid £25 were in fact members before the freeze date, others are affliated trade unionists, and so on). 

What is unarguably more significant, as one party staffer reflected is, “the complaints are nastier now [than last year]”. More and more of the messages to compliance are firmly in what you might call “the barbecue category” – they are obviously groundless and based on personal animosity. That doesn’t feel like the basis of a party that is ready to unite at any level. Publicly and privately, most people are still talking down the chances of a split. It may prove impossible to avoid.

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. He usually writes about politics.