Myleene Klass clashed with Ed Miliband over the mansion tax. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Why Ed Miliband's bizarre mansion tax feud with Myleene Klass works in Labour's favour

A former popstar's attack on the Labour leader's tax proposals could help him out.

Last night on ITV's The Agenda, an intriguing new genre of the political panel format was invented: minor early-noughties celebrities scolding party leaders. Unsurprisingly, it went well with the internet, and soon articles popped up everywhere suggesting that Myleene Klass – star of stage and screen (Hear'Say and M&S adverts) – had "owned", or gone "full Paxman" on, Ed Miliband over his proposal for a mansion tax.

Here's what she had to say:

For me, it's so disturbing – the name in its own right: 'mansion tax'. Immediately you conjure up an image of these Barbie-esque houses, but in London, which is where 80 per cent of the people who will be paying this tax actually live, have you seen what that amount of money can get you? It's like a garage.

When you do look at the people who will be suffering this tax, it's true a lot of them are grannies who have had these houses in their families for a long, long time. 

The people who are the super-super rich buying their houses for £140m, this is not necessarily going to affect them because they’ve got their tax rebates and amazing accountants. It’s going to be the little grannies who have lived in those houses for years and years.

For all her passion, and the fact that it is mordibly wonderful to watch one-time Popstars contestants having a go at nonplussed politicos, this row could work in Miliband's favour. 

Not only has Klass' suggestion that £2m will only land you a "garage" in London received a great deal of mockery but the mansion tax is an undeniably popular policy. YouGov recently found that it is supported by 72 per cent of people. As well as this, a majority of people want more money spent on the NHS, which is what Miliband's mansion tax would pay for. This row will do more to bring an already overwhelmingly popular policy proposal to the attention of voters than embarrass Miliband.

Also he did a Hear'Say pun:

Anoosh Chakelian is deputy web editor at the New Statesman.

David Cameron addresses pupils at an assembly during a visit to Corby Technical School on September 2, 2015. Photograph: Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Can Cameron maintain his refugee stance as he comes under attack from all sides?

Tory MPs, the Sun, Labour and a growing section of the public are calling on the PM to end his refusal to take "more and more". 

The disparity between the traumatic images of drowned Syrian children and David Cameron's compassionless response ("I don't think there is an answer that can be achieved simply by taking more and more refugees") has triggered a political backlash. A petition calling for greater action (the UK has to date accepted just 216 refugees) has passed the 100,000 threshold required for the government to consider a debate after tens of thousands signed this morning. Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson has tweeted: "This is not an immigration issue, it's a humanitarian one, and the human response must be to help. If we don't, what does that make us?" Tory MPs such as Nicola Blackwood, David Burrowes, Jeremy Lefroy and Johnny Mercer have similarly appealed to Cameron to reverse his stance.

Today's Sun declares that the UK has "a proud record of taking in desperate people and we should not flinch from it now if it is beyond doubt that they have fled for their lives." Meanwhile, the Washington Post has published a derisive piece headlined "Britain takes in so few refugees from Syria they would fit on a subway train". Labour has called on Cameron to convene a meeting of Cobra to discuss the crisis and to request an emergency EU summit. Yvette Cooper, who led the way with a speech on Monday outlining how the UK could accept 10,000 refugees, is organising a meeting of councils, charities and faith groups to discuss Britain's response. Public opinion, which can turn remarkably quickly in response to harrowing images, is likely to have grown more sympathetic to the Syrians' plight. Indeed, a survey in March found that those who supported accepting refugees fleeing persecution outnumbered opponents by 47-24 per cent. 

The political question is whether this cumulative pressure will force Cameron to change his stance. He may not agree to match Cooper's demand of 10,000 (though Germany is poised to accept 800,000) but an increasing number at Westminster believe that he cannot remain impassive. Surely Cameron, who will not stand for election again, will not want this stain on his premiership? The UK's obstinacy is further antagonising Angela Merkel on whom his hopes of a successful EU renegotiation rest. If nothing else, Cameron should remember one of the laws of politics: the earlier a climbdown, the less painful it is. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.