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.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Why relations between Theresa May and Philip Hammond became tense so quickly

The political imperative of controlling immigration is clashing with the economic imperative of maintaining growth. 

There is no relationship in government more important than that between the prime minister and the chancellor. When Theresa May entered No.10, she chose Philip Hammond, a dependable technocrat and long-standing ally who she had known since Oxford University. 

But relations between the pair have proved far tenser than anticipated. On Wednesday, Hammond suggested that students could be excluded from the net migration target. "We are having conversations within government about the most appropriate way to record and address net migration," he told the Treasury select committee. The Chancellor, in common with many others, has long regarded the inclusion of students as an obstacle to growth. 

The following day Hammond was publicly rebuked by No.10. "Our position on who is included in the figures has not changed, and we are categorically not reviewing whether or not students are included," a spokesman said (as I reported in advance, May believes that the public would see this move as "a fix"). 

This is not the only clash in May's first 100 days. Hammond was aggrieved by the Prime Minister's criticisms of loose monetary policy (which forced No.10 to state that it "respects the independence of the Bank of England") and is resisting tougher controls on foreign takeovers. The Chancellor has also struck a more sceptical tone on the UK's economic prospects. "It is clear to me that the British people did not vote on June 23 to become poorer," he declared in his conference speech, a signal that national prosperity must come before control of immigration. 

May and Hammond's relationship was never going to match the remarkable bond between David Cameron and George Osborne. But should relations worsen it risks becoming closer to that beween Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling. Like Hammond, Darling entered the Treasury as a calm technocrat and an ally of the PM. But the extraordinary circumstances of the financial crisis transformed him into a far more assertive figure.

In times of turmoil, there is an inevitable clash between political and economic priorities. As prime minister, Brown resisted talk of cuts for fear of the electoral consequences. But as chancellor, Darling was more concerned with the bottom line (backing a rise in VAT). By analogy, May is focused on the political imperative of controlling immigration, while Hammond is focused on the economic imperative of maintaining growth. If their relationship is to endure far tougher times they will soon need to find a middle way. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.